ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA vs. ITO, SAWAI MADHOPUR

PER BHAGCHAND, AM

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Kota

dated 18-10-2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 raising therein following

grounds:-

‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) without at all considering the detailed submissions that too supported by settled position of law, assuming wrong facts merely referring the bare provision of the Act, unjustifiably and illegally confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,19,723/- made by the ITO quite arbitrarily and unjustifiably made by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, this unjustified and illegal addition may kindly be deleted. (2) That the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not considering the ground of appeal against charge of interest u/s 234A at Rs. 3,478/- it was mandatory and 1

ITA No.341/JP/2016 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta vs ITO, Ward- 3, Swai Madhopur consequential while this is not chargeable in the case. Hence, this may kindly be considered and be directed to be deleted.’’

2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order

of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:-

‘’I have gone through assessee's submissions and AO’s findings. As regards No. 1, the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable if it had a contract with the Transport Companies for the whole year and also since payments were made to the Truck owners, the assessee was not liable for TDS. However, this is not a case of expenses paid or payable before the due date or so. It is a case where payments in excess of the limits were made and no tax was deducted without any reason. Clearly in such case that at least for the payments made prior to 1-10-2009, the assessee gets covered under the violation of Section 194C since the amounts exceeded the admissible limits and since all the payments were made on bills raised by Transport Companies and not individual Truck owners, the payments were liable for TDS which the assessee fails to execute. Under the circumstances, the case laws cited by the assessee do not come to his rescue. In that ITAT Jaipur Bench order cited by the assessee also, the fact was that there were 5 different individual truck owners and not Transport agencies. Hence, looking to the overall facts as discussed, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the AO and the addition of Rs. 3,19,723/- is confirmed.

2.2 The Bench has heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. It is noted that the AO disallowed the amount of Rs. 3,19,723/-

u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee did not deduct the tax u/s 194C of the Act

from the freight payments made to the transporters which in first appeal has been

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it is noted that the

ld.AR of the assessee repeated the same arguments as made before the lower

authorities but he did not controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in

question. In this view of the matter, the Bench does not find any infirmity in the

order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question which is sustained. Thus Ground

No. 1of the assessee is dismissed. 2

ITA No.341/JP/2016 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta vs ITO, Ward- 3, Swai Madhopur 3.1 In Ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not considering the ground of appeal against charge of interest at Rs. 3,478/- u/s 234A of the Act. 3.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that the charging of interest u/s 234A is mandatory and consequential in nature and the Bench finds no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Thus Ground No. 2 of the assessee is dismissed. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /11/2017

Sd/- ¼HkkxpUn½ (Bhagchand) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10 /11/ 2017 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Hindaun City 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward- 3, Swai Madhopur vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 341/JP/2016 ) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत