TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the view that 15-I was received subsequently when the assessee was confronted with the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The availability of form 15-I, however, at the time of assessment proceedings is not doubted. Therefore, in view of decision in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta [2011 (5) TMI 503 - ITAT MUMBAI] Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 24.74.376/-. In the result, ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed. - ITA No. 202 (Kol) of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2011 - Sri N.Vijayakumaran, Judicial Member Sri C.D. Rao, Accountant Member For the Appellant: Sri S.K. Roy For the Respondent: Sri Sunil Surana ORDER (N. Vijayakumaran), Judicial Member : This appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.15-I, but the same was not properly filled or verified/submitted before the ld. C.I.T. of the contractor. He, therefore, invoked provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act read with Rule 29D of the Rules and made addition of ₹ 26,76,722/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. On appeal, the ld. C.I.T.(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 26,76,722/- by observing as under :- 7.2. I have considered the facts narrated in the assessment order and submission of the Ld AR. In so far the applicability of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on the amount which was duly paid during the year and was not payable at the end of the year, I do not agree with the submissions of the appellant. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are linked wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authorities can be invoked but for that reason disallowance cannot be made u/s 40(a)(ia). Therefore the addition was not called for. In view, of my above decision I decline to adjudicate on the alternative plea that there was no contract with the individual truck owners for carrying on of the goods in the transport business. The addition of ₹ 2676722/- is deleted. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Departmental Representative relied o the order of the ld. A.O. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the ld. C.I.T.(A). He also submitted that the assessee s case is squarely covered by the decisions of I.T.A.T., Kolkata Benches in the following cases, copies of which have been pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be said that the assessee did not have declarations with him at the time when he paid the interest to the payees. That would be a separate matter and separate proof and evidence is required to show that even when the assessee paid the interest, he did not have the declarations from payees with him and therefore he ought to have deducted the tax from the payment. No such evidence or proof has been brought by the department. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the assessee s claim that since he had the declarations of the payees in the prescribed form before him at the time when the interest was paid, he was not liable to deduct tax therefrom under section 194A. If he was not liable to deduct tax, section 40(a)(ia) is not attra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
