PRADEEP SINGH GREWAL,MAYURBHANJ vs. CIT, CUTTACK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.327/CTK/2013 Assessment Year :2007-08

Pradeep kumar Grewal, Prop. Vs. CIT, Cuttack M/s. J.B.Roadways, At: Jashipur, Dist: Mayurbhanj PAN/GIR No. AJSPG 0282 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Pradeep Singh Grewal, Assessee Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT, DR

Date of Hearing : 24/05/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26 /05/ 2017

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s. 263 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 of CIT, Cuttack, dated 28.2.2012, for the

assessment year 2006-07.

24.5.2017 explaining that the Authorised Representatives are out of Orissa

due to prior engagement.

case was adjourned several times at the request of ld A.R. of the assessee.

2 ITA No. 327/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08 Considering the ground of adjournment sought by the assessee and the

appeal filed in the year 2013, we consider it appropriate to reject the

adjournment application and in the interest of justice, we proceed to

dispose of the appeal after hearing ld D.R.

the CIT in passing order u/s.263 dated 28.2.2012 as invalid and also

grounds on merit.

J.B.Roadways. During the course of assessment proceedings, the

Assessing Officer based on the financial statement found that the assessee

has claimed Assessing transportation charges of Rs.83,64,196/- debited in

the profit and loss account. When the information was called for, the

assessee could not substantiate the claim by providing details of

transactions, address of the persons to whom the payments were made.

According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was required to deduct

TDS at the prescribed rate under the provisions of section 194C applicable

in respect of transportation charges and also as per Tax Audit Report, the

assessee has not deducted TDS from such persons who had supplied their

vehicles on hire to the assessee. The Assessing Officer further relied on

the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and formed an opinion that the

provisions of section 194C are attracted and passed order under section

143(3) on 4.9.2009 without considering the facts of non-deduction of TDS.

3 ITA No. 327/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08 6. Subsequently, the CIT on perusal of the assessment records found

that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of

the revenue in respect of non-deduction of TDS and issued a show cause

notice u/s.263 of the Act to the assessee.

of hearing on 24.6.2010, there was no compliance by the assessee and

again the case was finally fixed on 6.1.2011 and refixed the date of hearing

on 24.1.2011. Again there was no compliance on 24.1.2011 and the

assessee was allowed opportunity re-fixing the date of hearing on

12.1.2012. On the said date also, there was no compliance by the assessee

nor any adjournment was filed. As there was no compliance on various

dates and the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the

interests of the revenue, the CIT set aside the assessment order for fresh

adjudication with the direction that the Assessing Officer shall examine the

genuineness of transportation claim shown in the profit and loss account

based on audited books of account and also the Assessing Officer shall

called for the information and declaration by the vehicle owners owned by

them and registration number and other details in form 15-I as per

I.T.Rules, 1962. Further, whether the assessee has at any time submitted

the details of vehicles owners earlier and also in the financial year 2006-07

any bills raised. With these observations, the CIT has passed order under

section 263 setting aside the assessment order passed under section

143(3) of the Act and also directed that if the assessee does not comply

4 ITA No. 327/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08 with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act, the transportation

charges are to be disallowed.

before us.

the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee as mentioned in the

order sheet. Now the assessee has filed adjournment application for

adjourning the case. We find that the appeal is numbered in the year 2013

and on perusal of revisionary order u/s.263, it seems that the assessee is

non-cooperative with the Income tax Department and there could be

various reasons for not appearing before the CIT. Further, there is no

record or any information available regarding consequential order passed

by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3)/ 263 pursuant to the direction of the

CIT. Considering the apparent facts of non-deduction of TDS by the

assessee and further that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting his

appeal before the CIT or even before the Tribunal, we are of the considered

opinion that the order under section 263 is in order and accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal of the assessee

5 ITA No. 327/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Pradeep kumar Grewal, Prop. M/s. J.B.Roadways, At: Jashipur, Dist: Mayurbhanj 2. The Respondent. CIT, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack