GLOBE REXINE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CO. WARD 2 (1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 842/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 September 2018AY 2006-074 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the AO's remand report supported the assessee on both issues after verification, the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for transport charges and advance received from customers. The AO later provided a remand report favoring the assessee after reviewing evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions despite the AO's favorable remand report, and whether the additions for transport charges and advances were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in appeal No.27/CIT(A)-13/A.Y 2006-07 dated 09.02.2018 for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Mr.K.Balasubramanian represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr.B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld.A.R that two additions were made in the case of assessee, one being the addition of `1,18,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head ‘Transport charges’ on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Act, and the second addition of `4,20,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer in respect of ‘advance received from customers’ treated as undisclosed income u/s.68 of the Act. It was a submission that details were produced before the Ld.CIT(A), who also called for a Remand Report from the ld. Assessing Officer after verifying the facts and evidences filed before him. It was a further submission that the Remand Report has been extracted by the Ld.CIT(A) in page-3 of this order. It was a submission that in the Remand Report dated 30.01.2018 sent by the ld. Assessing Officer in regard to first issue, the A.O has categorically given a finding that “Though at Sl.No.4, it was mentioned as Transport charges, actually this payment was Contract wages paid to a contractor for payment to his men. This was also very much within the threshold limits u/s.194C and hence the requirement to deduct TDS does not arise” and in regard to second issue, the A.O has categorically given a finding that “Since the above amounts were only advances received from customer and the same has been repaid back, application of Sec.68 does not arise”. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer has given the Remand Report in favour of the assessee and without considering the Remand Report, the Ld.CIT(A) has held the issues against the assessee. It was a prayer by the ld.A.R that the order of the CIT(Appeals) be reversed and the two additions may be deleted.

4.

In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the Remand Report of the Assessing Officer in assessee’s case shows that both the issues in the appeal have been reported by the ld. Assessing

Officer in favour of assessee after verification of the evidences. This being so, we are of the view that additions made by the ld. Assessing

Officer and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of both the issues are liable to be deleted, and we do so. In the circumstances both the issues for assessment year 2006-07 stand allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 17th September, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 194C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →