ACIT, CIR-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SRI ATINDRA NATH CHOUBEY, BURDWAN

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1. The Ld CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that during the assessment proceedings, 15I/15J forms were sought as evidence of submission to the jurisdictional CIT but the assessee failed to provide the same. It is noteworthy to mention here that the assessee was asked to produce 151/15J forms which already were in existence, the AO never asked the assessee to produce the details of PAN of the transporter in the new form as pointed out by the Ld. CIT (A). The purpose of the section 194C(6) & 194C(7) is to very whether the PAN furnished by the contractors/subcontractors to the contractee is true or not. Therefore the type of the forms and whether it was in existence or not is not important here, the more

3 Atindra Nath Chaubey important is the information to be furnished to the jurisdictional CIT as required u/s 194C(7).The Ld. CIT (A) has cited as a case of ITO, W2(3); Kolkata vs M/s Link Consultants Pvt. Ltd of ITAT, A Bench, Kolkata dt. 29/11/2011 that once the contractor furnishes PAN to the contractee, the liability to deduct tax ceases to exist. In reference to that, it is pertinent to mention here that the contractors may furnish false PAN to the contractee unless & until it is verified by the CIT. Therefore, the essence of section 194C(6) & 194C(7) has been overlooked by the ld. CIT(A). 4.1. Ld. DR for the revenue has vehemently submitted that assessee did not make the compliance of Form No.15-I & Form No.15-J. Besides, CIT(A) has admitted the submissions of the assessee without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the fact. Ld. DR has pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) did not follow the proper procedure to admit the additional explanation and submissions of the assessee. In addition to this, ld. DR for the revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the AO which we have noted already in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

4.2. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the assessee under consideration has done the proper compliance of Section 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any additional evidence before ld.CIT(A). The assessee has given PAN Number and other documents and submitted explanation before the AO that there was a proper compliance on the part of the assessee so far as Section 194C sub section 6 and sub section 7 are concerned and Form No.15-I & 15-J are concerned. Ld. AR submitted that after substitution of Section 194C w.e.f. 1st April, 2009, new Form as required u/s.194C(7) has not been prescribed yet. Secondly going by import of decision in ITO

4 Atindra Nath Chaubey Ward-2(3), Kolkata Vs. M/s Link Consultants Pvt. Ltd., of ITAT ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata dated 29.11.2011, once the contractor furnishes PAN to the appellant, the liability to deduct tax cease to exist and hence, on ground that tax not deducted a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made. Considering the factual position cited above, we are of the view that there is no any point to disturb the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 4.3. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.