TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the amount payable and not on the amount paid and debited to P L account without deduction of tax at source. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in holding that as the amount of Rs.69,27,693/- paid towards warehousing charges is not payable at the year end, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, where a sum of Rs.69,27,693/- was paid towards warehousing charges for the purpose of storage of goods/stock for assessee s business is covered by Section 1941 so that the failure to deduct tax would warrant application of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various places nearly 8) Panchkula 45,66,136/- 3 Safidan Co-operative Marketing cum processing Society Ltd. Safidan 23,89,737/- 4 Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi Gohana 14,22,527/- 5 Various payment of storage charges to above warehouse 4,13,293/- Total 69,27,693/- Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the above amount and added to the total income of the assessee. 3.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions relied on by both the sides. So far as the issue relating to non applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) in a case where no amount is outstanding at the end of the year the same has been decided against the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vinay Ashwinikumar Joneja Vs. ITO vide ITA No.1514/PN/2012 order dated 22-10-2013 for A.Y. 2006-07. It has been held in the said decision that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in a case even if no amount is payable at the end of the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of the rate supplied by APMC, Latur . 5.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has shown closing stock of Soyabean at 750 Quintals by applying the rate of Rs.1,800/- per Quintal. The Assessing Officer noted that the opening stock of Soyabean has been shown at Rs.2,300/- per Quintal and during the year the assessee has sold soyabean only to the extent of 894 quintals in August 2008 @Rs.2,599/- per quintal. The Assessing Officer obtained the purchase rates of the soyabean from APMC, Latur for the period 27-03-2009 to 31-03-2009 which were between Rs.2,000/- per quintal to Rs.2,255/- per quintal. The Assessing Officer, therefore, adopt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock of soyabean of 756 quintals is to be valued @Rs.2,127.50 per quintal which works out to Rs.16,08,390/- as against Rs.13,61,142/- shown by the appellant. The difference between the value of the stock shown by the appellant and the value arrived at as above is Rs.2,47,248/-. The appellant has not pointed out and proved as to how and what basis she has valued the closing stock @Rs.1,800/- per quintal. In view of the above facts and discussion, the addition on account of under valuation of stock of soyabean has been confirmed to the extent of Rs.2,47,248/- as against made by the A.O. at Rs.3,43,638/-. The A.O. is directed accordingly. Ground No.2 stands partly allowed . 5.4 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
