SH. SUDHIR VIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the sustenance of disallowance of Rs.7,67,147/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee paid interest amounting to Rs.7,67,147/- to Tata Capital Ltd., without deduction of tax at source. The AO made disallowance of this sum u/s 40(a)(ia), which came to be upheld in the first appeal.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that similar issue was raised in the assessee’s appeal for the immediately succeeding assessment year in which the assessee placed certain additional evidence in the form of certificate, that was admitted by the Tribunal as additional evidence and the matter restored to the file of AO for a fresh decision. A copy of this order dated 12.1.2016 has been placed on record. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the impugned order.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material available on record, I find that the assessee has placed on record a similar certificate relevant for the year under consideration, which is an additional evidence. In the absence of any distinguishing features pointed out by the ld. DR in relation to the year under consideration vis- à-vis the immediately succeeding year, respectfully following the precedent, the matter is remitted to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal in its order for the assessment year 2012-13.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.