HARI RAM PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1960/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hari Ram Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Br. #32-33, Pooja Trading Co., 1 & TPS, Kallur Mandli, Industrial Area, Shimoga. NT Road, Shivamogga – 577 202. PAN – AGKPP 7025 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Priyesh B Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) issued under section 250 of the Act on 07.04.2025 for the asst. year – 2017-18.

ITA No.1960/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The assessee, an individual, is engaged in wholesale trading of various types of loose tea powder under the trade name M/s Pooja Trading Co. For the year in question, the assessee filed his Return of Income for AY 2017-18 on 28.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 38,01,870/-. The case was chosen for scrutiny under CASS, leading to notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.

4.1 Dissatisfied with the AO's order, the assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A).

4.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee argued that the disallowance made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The payment was for lorry freight, and the assessee claimed that he was not obligated to deduct TDS as per the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act. The assessee had obtained declarations from the relevant transporters, stating they were in the business of plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages and owned ten or fewer goods carriages, and thus, no TDS was needed on these payments. Furthermore, the assessee argued that since the conditions of section 194C(6) were met, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted.

.

ITA No.1960/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee claimed that no TDS was necessary on lorry freight payments based on declarations from the transporters. However, the assessee did not provide these declarations. Without supporting evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) found the assessee's claim unverified and upheld the disallowance of Rs. 4,97,912/- made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

6.1 The learned AR submitted that the assessee did not deduct TDS on the freight payments due to the exception carved out in section 194C(6) of the Act, as he had the necessary declarations from the transporters. This specific plea was also presented to the Ld. CIT(A). However, the declarations were inadvertently not uploaded with the written submissions to the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance based on this omission.

6.2 The learned AR stated that these declarations have now been furnished before the Tribunal as additional evidence, along with an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules,

.

ITA No.1960/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 1963. The declarations are critical in determining whether the assessee had to deduct TDS under section 194C of the Act. The failure to upload them to the Ld. CIT(A) was unintentional and had no ill intent.

6.3 The Ld. AR requested that the additional evidence be admitted for fairness, and that the case be sent back to the AO to verify the declarations and determine the allowance of the claim according to the law. The Ld. AR also stated that the assessee would provide all necessary details and cooperate with the AO.

7.1 Concerning the additional evidence submitted to the Tribunal along with the application under Rule 29, the Ld. DR contended that this evidence was not available to the lower authorities and thus needs verification by the AO. Therefore, he requested that if the Tribunal admits the additional evidence, the case should go back to the AO for verification of the declarations and for a decision on the issue in line with the law.

.

ITA No.1960/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 8.1 The assessee claims that no TDS was needed under section 194C(6) because he obtained declarations from the relevant transporters. It also stated that although this argument was presented to the Ld. CIT(A), the declarations were not uploaded due to an oversight. The assessee has now submitted these declarations as additional evidence, along with an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules.

8.2 Considering the circumstances, we find that the declarations submitted by the assessee are important for resolving this issue. Since this evidence is crucial and was not reviewed by the lower authorities, we admit it in the interest of fairness. However, because the declarations were not available to the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), the issue needs verification by the AO. Thus, we are sending this matter back to the AO to verify the declarations and other relevant details submitted by the assessee before deciding the claim of the assessee according to the law. The assessee must provide all necessary evidence to the AO and cooperate throughout the process. The AO should also give the assessee a fair chance of being heard. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 8th day of July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 8th July, 2026 / vms /

.

ITA No.1960/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

.