SHRI PRADIP KUMAR DAS, Kolkata v. ITO WARD 29(4), Kolkata

ITA 1727/KOL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 172723514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ADNPD9947M
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1727/KOL/2009
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant SHRI PRADIP KUMAR DAS, Kolkata
Respondent ITO WARD 29(4), Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 20-09-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 09-10-2009
Judgment Text
1 A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- A KO LKATA [ . . . . . .. . . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . '# ] BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 1727 (KOL) OF 2009 %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PRADIP KUMAR DAS KOLKATA. (PAN-ADNPD9947M) INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-29(4) KOLKATA. (+ / APPELLANT ) - % - - VERSUS - (/0+ / RESPONDENT ) + 1 2 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI S.BANDOPADHYAY /0+ 1 2 ' / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI D.K. SONOWAL '3 / ORDER ( . . . . . .. . ) (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XVI KOLKATA DATED 08/07/2009 ON T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES ARE ARBITRARY UNREASONED ERRONEOUS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 95 278/- OUT OF CAR RENTAL CHARGES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT EITHER OF THEM DISCUSSING OR EVEN SPELLING OUT ON WHAT ACCOUNT AND UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT SHOULD H AVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO S/SHRI S.S. GREWAL AND DILIP SHAW. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33 97 857/- OUT OF REPOSSESSION EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT EITHER OF THEM DISCUSSING OR EVEN SPELLING OUT ON WHAT ACCOUNT AND UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT SHOULD H AVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A NUMBER OF PERSONS WITHOUT CARIN G TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT NOT HAVING TAXABLE INCOM E. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ARBITRARILY MAKING AND THE LEARNED CLT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 897/- OUT OF PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTANCY CHARGES @ 1% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED T HAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT MENTIONED UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF THE ACT THE ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IS VAGUE FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS STATING THAT TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AS PER CHAPTER XVII-B OF THE ACT BUT NO SPECIFIC P ROVISION HAS BEEN INDICATED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO LD. C. I.T.(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH STATING AS TO UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS R EQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS FOR THE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT MADE BY HIM. THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE LD. C.I.T. (A). 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A/R THAT NEITHER THE A.O. NOR THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS MENTIONED AS TO UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS R EQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO DEDUCT TDS AS PER CHAPTER XVII- B OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS DISALL OWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER T O HIM WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE WILL STATE SPECIFICALLY THE PROVISION OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE WI LL CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCES AS MAY BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND ALSO GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES. THEREFORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSES EE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 '3 #5' 6 5% 7 48 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/09 /2010. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) '# ( . . . . . .. . ) (C.D.RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 20-09-2010 3 $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 1727 (KOL) OF 2009 '3 1 /9 :'9';- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT : PRADIP KUMAR DAS 37/2 DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD KO LKATA-700 027 2 /0+ / THE RESPONDENT : I.T.O. WARD-29(4) KOLKATA. 3. 3% () : THE CIT(A)-XVI KOLKATA. 4. 3%/ THE CIT KOL- 5 ?7 /% / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 6 GUARD FILE . 09 // TRUE COPY '3%5/ BY ORDER (DKP) @ A / DEPUTY REGISTRAR .