ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, SHIVAMOGGA vs. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K T, SHIVAMOGGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1298/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 February 2020AY 2012-135 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding that the revenue's reliance solely on filing an SLP before the Supreme Court was insufficient to controvert the CIT(Appeals)'s observations.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in transportation, debited freight expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C, aggregating to Rs. 2,00,54,750/-. The CIT(Appeals) granted relief by deleting the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether freight expenses are deductible when TDS was not deducted, and if the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance based on judicial decisions challenged by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALESmt. Jayalakshmi K T,

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh, C.A
For Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Hearing: 20.02.2020Pronounced: 24.02.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The revenue has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore passed under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

2.

The Revenue has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal as under :

3.

The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of transportation and filed the Return of Income on 31.03.2013 with total income of Rs.8,90,500. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance, the learned Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and submitted the details and case was discussed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has debited freight expenses to the profit and loss account and called for the details of TDS made on such payments. The assessee’s contention that the assessee has collected PAN of all the persons to whom the freight charges have been paid as per Section 194C(6)

Act. The assessee also filed a letter with breakup of freight expenses. However, the Assessing Officer find, that there is a violation of non-deduction of TDS provision under Section 194C of the Act and disallowed the freight expenses for non deduction of TDS agggerating to Rs.2,00,54,750/- and Assessed total income of Rs.2,09,70,380/- and passed the order under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). Whereas the CIT(Appeals) considered the grounds of appeal

, findings of the Assessing Officer and submissions made by the assessee on the disputed issue regarding payment of freight charges. Further, the CIT(Appeals) relied on the judicial decisions and granted relief under sec40(a)(ia) of the Act, and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the LdDR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the judicial decision relied on by the CIT(Appeals) are challenged by the revenue and filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Contra, the learned Authorized Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals).

5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue as envisaged by the learned Departmental Representative is in respect of CIT(Appeals) granting relief relying on the High Court , which the Department has challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP. We found, the revenue has relied only on filing of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.We consider it proper to refer the observations of the CIT(Appeals) at page 7 para 5a of the order as under :

The LdDR could not controvert the observations of the CIT(Appeals) with any new evidence or cogent material. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals) on this disputed issue and confirm the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of revenue.

6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →