TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the case, we noticed that most of the parties are conducting their business under the name and style as M/s. Sticher Co, M/s Hollywood Bolywood and M/s Nisha Laundry etc.., therefore, we are of the opinion the identity of the parties are very much available before the AO and with regard to genuineness of business transaction also proved to be correct in the context of the business activity of the assesse and in connection thereto the job works performed by the parties therein mentioned in page-2 of order of AO and the AO could not bring on record any evidence contrary to the evidence produced by the Assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the disallowance ought not to have made by the AO - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per list provided by the Assessee in respect of above charges, which were returned un-served by the Department of Posts. The details of the same as per the AO are reproduced as under: SI. No. Name of Karigars Total amount paid Remarks of the Postal Department 1 Mofizul Mollah 48,032 Not known 2 Hasan Ali Mollah 46,048 -do- 3 Sasiul 44,791 Incomplete address 4 Pintu Naiya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transactions. The A.O noticed that the assesse deducted TDS from M/s. Sticher Co. in March, 2007 and deposited belatedly in May, 2007 and even the amount of ₹ 3,25,000/- made to M/s. Sticher Co. was not allowed and disallowed entire amount of ₹ 9,30,325/-. 6. In 1st appeal the assesse submitted that the stitching and washing charges were performed by the skilled job workers at their respective residential premises in muffusil areas in Howrah, Hooghly, South 24-Parganas North 24 Parganas districts and is major part in the manufacturing of readymade garments. Further submitted that the Assessee furnished names and addresses of such job workers to AO and the cost of stitching and washing charges was economised from 36.82% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the payment can neither be considered as unverifiable nor be disallowed by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground TDS had not been deposited by 31st March, in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT relying on the decision of Kolkata High Court in CIT vs Virgin Creations in ITA NO.302 of 2011 dated 23-11-2011. In which it has been held that the amendment brought in finance bill 2010 had retrospective affect regarding deposit on tax deducted or before the due date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) by the assesee and therefore such payments were not disallowable u/s. 40(a)(ia). Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the disallowance made by the AO in respect of payment of ₹ 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by this appeal. In support of grounds of appeal, the Ld.AR that it was a genuine expenditure incurred for the purpose of business of assessee and the accounts of the assesse were audited and the expenses are now gone down. They are all skilled workers are in organized sector and the transactions can not be doubted. In reply, the Ld.DR submits that all the workers are not ordinary persons and they could have responded to the notices issued by the AO and it is wrong to say that their where abouts are not known to the assesse and there is no ingredient of genuine person. 9. Heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. That according to the AO that all the parties to whom the AO issued letters returned unserved and even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
