TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the disposal of the assessee without involving themselves in carrying out any part of the work undertaken by the assessee. The decisions in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation vs ACIT, 124 ITD 40(Vis) [ 2009 (1) TMI 337 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] and VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD [ 2011 (4) TMI 887 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] are followed. In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 86/Viz/2013, C.O. No. 55/Viz/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2013 - B. Ramakotaiah (Accountant Member) And Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : K. V. N. Charya For the Cross objector: C. Subrahmanyam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayawada on 13.7.2009 mentioning the names and addresses of the parties along with the lorry Numbers from whom the declarations in form No.15-I were obtained. The assessee enclosed a copy of the acknowledgement in token of having submitted the forms before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada along with copies of declarations submitted by the above lorry owners in Form No. 15-I. The AO on examining the details submitted by the assessee noted that on going through Action Points in Form No. 15-J, it is noticed that the assessee is under obligation to submit the Form No. 15-J on or before 30.6.2009 before the Commissioner of Income Tax,Vijayawada. However, it was seen that assessee had submitted the said Form No.15-J on 13.7.2009 as aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT(A), who relying upon the decision of the ITAT in the case of Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad vs DCIT, 46 SOT 469(Ahd) held that mere non-submission of Form No.15-J within the prescribed time limit cannot pave the way for disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and, therefore, deleted the addition. The findings of the CIT(A) in this regard is extracted here under: 5B. Second issue relates to submission of Forms No. 15J in the office of the CIT, not within the financial year, but beyond 13 days and consequent disallowance of transportation charges paid to lorry owners amounting to ₹ 4,86,80,909 by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Here, it may be noted that the appellant is a transport contracto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contractor can be disallowed only on the basis of non-submission of Form No. 15J within prescribed time-limit is an issue before the contractors, which is resolved by the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the Case of Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad vs. DCIT, reported in [2011] 46 SOT 469 (AHD), wherein, it has been held that mere non submission of Form No. 15J (having received Form No. 151 from his subcontractor for non deduction of TDS) under Rule 29D to the AO within prescribed time limit cannot pave way for disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia). Since the facts of the present case and the case of Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad is same, I am of the opinion that the AO is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and accordingly he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not accepted the assesse s contention only on the ground that Form No.15-J alongwith the declaration in Form No.15- I was not submitted before the CIT on due date .e. 30.6.2009. It is further relevant to note that the AO does not dispute the fact that the concerned persons were owning not more than two trucks and they have submitted the declaration in Form No.15-I. In these circumstances, submission of Form 15-J before the CIT after a delay of 13 days cannot be considered to be fatal enough so as to entail disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to note the observations made by the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Balibhai Khanbhai Mankad (supra) as under: . It is at this point of time second pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on an amount of ₹ 4,75,51,774/- on the ground that payees have submitted the declaration in Form No.15-I. So far as the remaining amount of ₹ 29,96,837/-, consisted of freight payments of ₹ 18,67,702/- where the aggregate amount in each cash did not exceed ₹ 50,000/- is concerned, the liability of TDS did not attract. However, the AO noted that balance amount of ₹ 11,29,135/- since was not subjected to TDS, the said amount was liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and, accordingly, added the said amount to the income of the assessee. The addition was challenged before the CIT(A) by the assessee. 10. In the course of hearing of appeal before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
