TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly covered by the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gurvinder Transport (2013 (7) TMI 141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) - I.T.A. NO. 100026/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - MR. RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN AND MR. SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR JJ. Appellants: (By Sri Y V Raviraj, Advocate) Respondent: (By Sriyuths Ashok A. Kulkarni H. R. Kambiyavar, Advocates) JUDGMENT RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J. , Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji , whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT , for short) and has upheld the disallowance claimed by the assessee, the Revenue has approached this Court. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer was found to be erroneous as well as prejudicial in the interest of Revenue. Since the assessee had paid truck hire charges of ₹ 30,35,515/- to one Mr. Shantinath B. Patravali, and had also paid ₹ 17,80,639/- to Smt. Savita S. Patravali, the assessee was required to submit Form No.15J before the appropriate Authority. However, as the assessee ha d failed to submit the said Forms before the appropriate Authority, it was felt that the payment made to these two persons was in violation of Section 194C(3) of the Act. 4. After the issuance of notice, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 26 3 of the Act by determining the revised income at ₹ 57,56,2 90/-, along with other additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the disallowances. Therefore, the two substantial questions of law, mentioned above, clearly arise for consideration in the present appeal. 8. However, on the other hand, Mr. Ashok A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the assessee, submits that according to Section 292B of the Act, no return of income, assessment would be invalid merely because of any mistake in such return of income or assessment as long as i n substance and in effect the return is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Admittedly, the assessee had submitted Form No.15J prior to the cut-off date of 30.06.2008. However, on 09.05.2008, inadvertently, the said Form was submitted, in Bangalore, at an ad dress which was opposite of the Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, from both these sub-contractors he had received Form No.15-I. The assessee was required to submit the Form No.15J before the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) at Bangalore. However, as the Office of Income Tax, and the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) were opposite each other, on the same floor of the building, inadvertently the Form No.15J was submitted before the Income Tax Officer, instead of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS). Thus, a human error had occurred in submitting the Form No.15J before the concerned Authority. 12. The fact that the Form No.15J had been submitted before the incorrect Authority, was noticed even by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order da ted 24.12.2010. According to the said order, copi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
