9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liable to be deleted in the interest of justice. 2. For that, the learned C.I.T.(A) should have deleted the addition of Rs. 2,24,662.00 made by the learned A.O on application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, when the impugned section has no application under the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. For that, the learned C.I.T.(A) should have deleted the addition of Rs. 11,24,266.00 made by the learned A.O on application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, when the impugned section has no application under the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. For that the learned C.I.T.(A) has committed gross error of law in confirming additions of Rs. 2,24,662.00 and Rs. 11,24,266.00 made by the learned A.O ignoring the expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified. This has not been done by the appellant. 6. Ld A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and ld D.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the Mumbai Bench Á' of the Tribunal in the case of Karwat Steel Traders vs ITO, 145 ITD 370 (Mum) has held as under: "The amount cannot be allowed as deduction only in the event when tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction has not been paid. In this case, the assessee was to deduct tax under provisions of section 194A. Section 194A is further qualified by the provisions of section 197A( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd thus, there is no default committed by the assessee. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise. Non-filing or delayed filing of such forms cannot result in disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The grounds raised by assessee are allowed. Assessing Officer is directed to modify the order accordingly" In the instant case, we find that it is not in dispute that the assessee filed Form 26A together with income tax return of the recipients of the amount before the CIT(A). The only ground for rejecting the explanation of the assessee was that the said Form was not filed with Director General of Income Tax (Systems) or his authorised persons. Hence, in our considered view, for non-filing of the said Form before the Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
