Shri Pukaram, Mysore v. ITO, Mysore

ITA 500/BANG/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50021114 RSA 2009
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 500/BANG/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Shri Pukaram, Mysore
Respondent ITO, Mysore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 11-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 11-01-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 19-05-2009
Judgment Text
ITA.500/B/2009 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A' BEFORE SHRI. K. P. T. THANGAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.500/BANG/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ) SHRI. PUKARAM M/S. ANJANA ZARDA AGENCY 362/A SHIVAYANA MUTT ROAD DEVARAJ MOHALLA MYSORE .. APPELLANT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 MYSORE .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. P. C. CHADAGA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JACINTA ZINIK VASHAI O R D E R PER K. P. T. THANGAL VICE PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THERE IS A DELAY OF 24 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM VIRAL FEVER ACCOMPANIED BY BRONCHITIS. HE WAS UNDE R TREATMENT AND REST WAS ADVISED BY THE DOCTOR FROM 12.2.2009 TO 13 .5.2009. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT IS ATTACHED. WE HEARD TH E DR. CONSIDERING ITA.500/B/2009 PAGE - 2 THAT THE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) AMOUNTING TO RS.2 37 316/- ON TH E GROUND THAT TDS WAS NOT MADE FOR PAYMENT MADE TO THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS. THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING INCOME AT RS.3 77 123/-. THE ASSESSEE I S A WHOLESALE AND RETAIL DEALER IN ZARDA ITEMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NOTICED THE ASSESSEE PAID TOWARDS LORRY FREIGHT DEBUTED AGAINST THE HEAD 'FREIGHT INWARD' OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 37 316/-. ON THIS AMO UNT HE FURTHER NOTED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U /S.194C OF THE ACT. HENCE HE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE 'S REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING SMALL PAYMENTS LI KE RS.300/- RS.500/- RS.2 000/- UP TO RS.2 LAKHS EVERY DAY TO THE LORRY DRIVERS AND THEY USED TO TAKE THIS AMOUNT FOR FILLING PETRO L/DIESEL ETC. PRACTICALLY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE ON THIS KIND OF SMALL AMOUNTS PAID TO THE LO RRY DRIVERS. ITA.500/B/2009 PAGE - 3 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THE BILL HAS BEEN RAISE D IN THE NAME OF THE TRANSPORTER. THE TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD WHEN THE AMOUNT REACHES A CERTAIN FIGURE AND ALSO T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE AMO UNT AT SOURCE ACCORDING TO THE LAW. 4. HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THI S GROUND FAILS AND IS DISMISSED. 5. COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND WHICH IS AGAINST TH E ADDITION OF RS.26 88 900/- MADE U/S.41(1) OF THE ACT BEING SAL ES-TAX REFUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1994-95 TO 1997-98 AGGREGATING TO RS.26 88 900/-. THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN RETAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 'THE APPELLANT HAD GOT DEDUCTION OF SALES TAX PAYME NT IN EARLIER YEARS ON PAYMENT BASIS. THEREFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY TAXED THE SAME NOW WHEN THE R EFUND HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE FACT THAT THERE IS FURTHER DISPUTE IN THE MATTER IS NOT MATERIAL CONSIDERING THAT SALES T AX PAYMENT AND SALES TAX REFUNDS ARE DEDUCTIBLE AND TAXABLE ON PAYMENT ITA.500/B/2009 PAGE - 4 AND RECEIPT BASIS AND NOT ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE AD DITION MADE IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED.' 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ACCORDING TO AS SESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE THE FIGURE WAS NOT DISCLOSED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR THE REASON THAT THE SALES-TAX DEPAR TMENT HAD GONE IN FURTHER APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE. WE ARE AFRAID THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON THAT AS AND WHEN THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BACK THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT B EFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO REASON TO DISTURB THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND ALSO FAILS AND IT IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (K. P. T. THANGAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE DATED : 22ND JANUARY 2010 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF ITAT NEW DELHI 7. GF ITAT BANGALORE