DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD., DHANBAD vs. NEW SATNAM TRASPORT CO., DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 11/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 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 noted that the CIT(A) had considered that TDS was deducted, payments were made through banking channels, and transactions tallied with ledger accounts. The CIT(A) also noted that TDS returns were filed and there were no written agreements, but the trucks were hired from the market for operations within the mining area. The revenue failed to dislodge the CIT(A)'s findings.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) deleting an addition of ₹2.04 crores made on account of disallowance of coal transportation charges. The assessee had claimed ₹16.02 crores for these charges. The revenue argued that PAN details and contracts with truck owners were not provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of coal transportation charges made by the AO is justified when the assessee has provided evidence of TDS deduction and payments through banking channels.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05/01/2026Pronounced: 05/01/2026

Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 05/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 05/01/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10215105 dated 22/11/2024 for the A.Y. 2021-22.

2.

Shri R.C. Marndi, ld. Sr.-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue. The assessee has filed a letter stating that he has not received the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue. A perusal of the grounds filed by the revenue shows that the grounds have been sent by e-mail to the e-mail address provided by the assessee. Even the mobile number is specifically recorded in the Form-36. At the time of hearing, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that the assessee has not produced the copy of the contract with the truck owners. It was a submission that even the PAN details are not provided by the assessee. It was a submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. It DCIT Vs New Satnam Transport Co. was a submission that this was a case of disallowance of the transport charges paid being coal transportation charges. It was a submission that the coal transportation charges claimed by the assessee during the impugned assessment year was nearly ₹ 16.02 crores out of which notices under Section 133(6) had been issued to the some of the parties and as they had not responded to the same, an amount of ₹ 2.04 crores had been disallowed. It was a submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

3. We have considered the submissions. We have also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). The facts in the present case clearly show that the ld. CIT(A) had taken into consideration the fact that the TDS had been deducted in respect of the payments to the truck owners. TDS cannot be deducted unless the PAN of the truck owners are available. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the fact that the payments have been made through banking channels and the transactions tallied with the ledger accounts. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the TDS returns have also been filed. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the fact that there are no agreements with the truck owners and the tippers and payloaders were hired from the market. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the fact that the trucks were operating inside the mining area. After considering all these evidences, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. The revenue has not been able to dislodge any of the findings of fact as recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is on the basis DCIT Vs New Satnam Transport Co. of the evidences and after considering the said evidences, this being so, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. The revenue has also raised another ground in ground No. 5 in regard to cash payment to Tirath Singh Capital account. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that such an issue does not exist in the order of the ld. CIT(A). This being so, this issue is not being adjudicated.

4.

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order announced in open court on 05/01/2026

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →