The ACIT, Circle-5,, Baroda v. M/s. Shree Pramukh Transport Co.,, Baroda

ITA 1717/AHD/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 171720514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAFFS2826M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1717/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-5,, Baroda
Respondent M/s. Shree Pramukh Transport Co.,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 21-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL AM) ITA NO.1717/AHD/2010 A.Y.: 2007-08 THE A. C. I. T. CIRCLE-5 5 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA 390 007 VS M/S. SHREE PRAMUKH TRANSPORT CO. BHUTADI ZAMPA BARODA PA NO. AAFFS 2826 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI BHUBNESH KULSHRESTHA DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH BENCH: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V BAR ODA DATED 23-03-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWAN CE U/S. 40 (A) (IA) OF RS.48 29 076/- 1.(II) THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE VER Y OPERATION OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) REVOLVES AROUND PRE SCRIBED DATES AND ANY LAPSE INVOKES DISALLOWANCE. HENCE FA ILURE TO FILE THE FORM 15-I WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DATE WO ULD ALSO FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF TH E ACT. ITA NO.1717/AHD/2010 ACIT CIR-5 BARODA VS M/S. SHREE PRAMUKH TRANSPORT CO. 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH T HE PARTIES PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD POINTED OUT BY THE PARTIES. 3. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 10 59 125/- AS CARTING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENQUIRED ABOUT COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISIONS UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 (C) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS WAS MADE IN FEW CASES NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED AS DECLARATION IN FORM NO.15-I WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PAYEES. ON PERUSAL OF THE FORM IT WAS NOTI CED THAT FORM NO.15-I WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT ON 17-12-2007 THOUGH IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 30-06-2007 AS PER RULE 29-B OF THE IT RULES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CARTING EXPENSES OF RS.48 29 076/- U/S 40 (A) (IA) OF THE IT ACT. IT WA S SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 1 94 C (3) (I) OF THE IT ACT DECLARATION IN FORM NO.15-I WAS OBTAINED THERE FORE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCES AND THA T SUCH FORMS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THAT FILING OF THE FORM IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DUE DATE IS A PROCEDURAL MA TTER AND IT DOES NOT HAVE MATERIAL BEARING ON SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO AVOID HARDSH IP TO SMALL TRANSPORT OPERATORS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED THAT HE HAD OBTAINED DECLARATION IN FORM NO.15-I FROM THE PAYEE S. THE LEARNED ITA NO.1717/AHD/2010 ACIT CIR-5 BARODA VS M/S. SHREE PRAMUKH TRANSPORT CO. 3 CIT(A) NOTED THAT ULTIMATELY FORM NO.15-I WAS FILED WITH DELAY IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER BUT THE ASSESSEE IN FAC T HAD OBTAINED THE DECLARATION AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE MANDATE GIVEN BY THE PAYEES NOT TO DED UCT TAX. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. T HE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT RULE 29 D OF THE IT RULES IS PROCEDU RAL IN NATURE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR ITSELF SHOWS THAT SINC E THE COMPLIANCE OF THE RULE WAS PROCEDURAL ONLY THEREFORE WHEN TH E ASSESSEE OBTAINED REQUISITE DECLARATION AND FILED THE SAME W ITH DELAY WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER AND ALSO FILED THE SAME BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WOULD PROVE THAT THE ADDITION IS CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE MATTER. ACCORDING TO SECTION 194 (C) (3) OF THE IT ACT THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE SECOND PROVISO BY OB TAINING DECLARATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. THEREFORE THER E WAS NO LIABILITY FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE GENUINENESS OF THE CERTIFICATE IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN CASE OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE P UT TO UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IN THE MATTER AND THAT TOO WHEN CERTAIN EX EMPTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN SECTION PROVISO TO SECTION 194 (C) (3) OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THERE IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER ITA NO.1717/AHD/2010 ACIT CIR-5 BARODA VS M/S. SHREE PRAMUKH TRANSPORT CO. 4 OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31-08-2010 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : -09-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD