CIT vs. VIJAY BHARAT ROADLINES PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 48/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, sr. standing counsel . . . versus . . . . . VIJAY BHARAT ROADLINES PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through . . . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 18.01.2012 . . . 1. Ld. counsel for the Revenue submits that additional evidence should not have been allowed to be taken on record by the CIT(Appeals) and therefore, a substantial question of law arises for consideration. We do not agree. . 2. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,34,91,490/- by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) for failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source under Section 194C on freight charges paid to the transporters. The details of freight charges paid to the transporters are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the assessment order. . 3. Before the CIT(Appeals) the assessee filed affidavits of the chartered accountant and authorized representative who had appeared before Assessing Officer, director of the company, Form No.15J filed in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) on 12th June, 2006 and copies of Form 15-I received from the transporters. A detailed chart was also filed before the CIT(Appeals) to show and establish that Section 194C was not applicable in respect of certain payments. . 4. Application under Rule 46A was filed along with the aforesaid documents. The CIT(Appeals) forwarded the said application and documents to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The CIT(Appeals) considered the objections raised by the Assessing Officer. It should be noted that the Assessing Officer in his report had stated that he had made an attempt to verify whether Form 15J had been submitted in the office of Commissioner of Tax (TDS) on 12th June, 2006. In spite of his request, the CIT(TDS) has neither confirmed nor denied receipt of the said Forms on the ground that the record is not traceable and that the register of receipts was either misplaced or destroyed in the fire that took place in Mayur Bhawan. . 5. CIT(Appeals) did not take on record the affidavits but took into consideration Forms 15-I and 15-J. He also examined the claim of the assessee qua some payments in respect of which it was stated that TDS under Section 194C was not required to be deducted. On the basis of the aforesaid facts he deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. . 6. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on different grounds but in view of findings and facts which have been recorded by the CIT(Appeals), we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . JANUARY 18, 2012 . vld . . . $ 31 .