DCIT, Malegaon v. Shri Jagannath r. Kalantri (HUF), Nashik

ITA 315/PUN/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 31524514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AASPK8774H
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 315/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Malegaon
Respondent Shri Jagannath r. Kalantri (HUF), Nashik
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-08-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 09-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR (JM) AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) ITA NO. 315/PN/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIR-3 MALEGAON APPELLANT V. SHRI JAGANNATH R. KALANTRI (HUF) 195 NEW WARD MALEGAON DT. NASHIK PAN: AASPK8774H RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 20/PN/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 315/PN/2009 ASST. YEAR 2 006-07) SHRI JAGANNATH R. KALANTRI (HUF) 195 NEW WARD MALEGAON DT. NASHIK PAN: AASPK8774H CROSS OBJECTOR V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIR-3 MALEGAON RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY: S/SHRI. A.S. SINGH/SANTOSH KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SUNIL GANOO ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM ITA NO. 315/PN/2009: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- II PUNE DATED 22.12.2008 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. THE C.I.T (APPEAL)S DECISION MAY PLEASE BE QUAS HED AS THE PROCEDURE LAID UNDER RULE 46A HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY HIM. 2. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT A CONTRACTOR. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CASES OF INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT COVERED BY SECTION 194C(2) DESPITE OF A NEW PROVISO INTRODUCED TO THAT SECTION BY FINANCE ACT 2002. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OFMRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILI ND VIDE ITA NO. 1318/PN/2008 ITA NO 315/PN/2009 & C.O.20/PN/2010 FORTUNET INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P. LTD. A.Y.2005-06 2 A.Y. 2005-06 AND MENTIONED THAT AO INVOKED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE ALREADY PAID TO THE DEDUCTEES WITHOUT MA KING T.D.S. AS PER THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE O NLY TO THE PAYMENTS STILL PENDING PAYABLE TO THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVIS IONS. SINCE THE AMOUNTS ARE ALREADY PAID CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. 123 TTJ (JP) 888 TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE INAPPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENTS ALREADY PA ID. THE SAID DECISION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND (SUPRA). THE CONCLUSION PORTION OF THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE RELEV ANT PARAGRAPHS OF DECISION OF PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND ( SUPRA ) ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS: A. CONCLUSION PORTION OF THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD . (SUPRA): ..THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS COULD OT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA); PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE ALSO FOR THE R EASON THAT THEY APPLY ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE IE DUE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT. B. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 3 HELD AS UNDER : 3. IN THIS BACKGROUND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN AS SESSEES CASE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PAID SO PROVISIONS OF S EC. 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE REASONS THAT WAS APPLIED ONLY WH EN AMOUNT IS PAYABLE. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. ON BEHALF OF REVENUE THE FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO THE CONCUR WITH THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUN T OF RS. 40 000/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) BECAUSE AMOUN T WAS NOT PAYABLE BUT ALREADY PAID . 4. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTI ON ARE ALREADY PAID. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE AND THE EXISTING BIND ING COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE HAVE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT IE JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND ( SUPRA ). CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE WE ARE OF THE OPINION ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE F OR THE ABOVE REASONS . ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED AS THEY ARE MERE TECHNICAL ONES IN NATURE. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO 315/PN/2009 & C.O.20/PN/2010 FORTUNET INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P. LTD. A.Y.2005-06 3 6. C.O. NO. 20/PN/2010: CONSIDERING OUR DECISION ON THE MAIN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH DAY OF AUGU ST 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 27TH AUGUST 2010 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-II NASHIK 4. THE CIT (A)- II NASHIK 5. THE D.R. B BENCH PUNE 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE