D.CHANDRASEKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

Shri D. Chandrasekar, the assessee, an individual is running a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. JP Shipping Agencies, dealing as a licensed custom house agent, which is engaged in clearing, forwarding, handling of tools for imports and exports in custom notified areas. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer added Rs.1,52,00,082/- U/s.40(a)(ia) for the reason that the assessee has not deducted TDS on container freight charges on 32 persons and Rs.8,11,459/- U/s.40(a)(ia) for the reason that the assessee has not deducted TDS on ocean freight charges (streamer agent charges) on 6 persons. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal, challenging the order of the CIT(A).

The assessee filed additional evidences in the form of copy of reimbursement invoices relating to Sattva CFS & Logistic Pvt. Ltd., CFS and Chakiat Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., / RCL Feeder Pte Ltd., and pleaded that these documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A), as they were not physically called for by them. A submission was made, that the payments made by the assessee did not constitute the assessee’s own expenditure and there is no brevity of contact between the assessee and the entities to which the payments were made. It is pleaded that in the interest of justice, admission of such evidences are required because the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and these evidences would have material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal. Therefore, the ld.AR pleaded to admit the additional evidence and decide the matter on merits.

We heard the rival submissions and admit the additional evidences, in the interest of justice. The assessee is primarily pleading that the impugned payments were made as reimbursement of expenses / statutory expenses, the fact of which has not been examined and whether the impugned amount is included as part of trading receipts, turnover, etc., were also not examined. Since, the additional evidences are admitted by the Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee shall lay all materials in support of his contention before the Assessing Officer and comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is also free to conduct appropriate

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose.