TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed his return of income for A.Y. 07-08 on 21.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 54,65,300/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 02.12.2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,76,200/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 16.12.2010 granted partial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,67,08,372 under Section 40(a)(ia) made by AO in two parts namely Rs. 1,06,20,979,under Sec. 40(a)(ia) and Rs. 60,87,393 under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the Assessee has raised several grounds but the only issue is with respect to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and the confirmation of addition of Rs. 60,80,393/- as bogus expenditure out of total addition of Rs. 1,67,08,372/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had made payment to sub contractors/ transporters, out of which sum of Rs. 1,93,33,215/- was stated have been made to individual (transporters) where the payment individually was less than 20,000/- at a time and less than 50,000/- on annual basis and therefore as per the Assessee no TDS was deductible from these payments. A.O. also noticed that Assessee had obtained Form-15 I from the transporters but the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Assessee's own case for A.Y. 06-07. It was further submitted that against the order of Tribunal for A.Y. 06-07, Revenue had preferred appeal before Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. He placed on record the copies of the aforesaid decisions of Tribunal as well as High Court. 8. With respect to disallowance of Rs. 60,87,393/- which CIT(A) has held to be bogus expenditure, the ld. A.R. submitted with the addition has been made by CIT(A) without making any enquiry and only on the basis of presumption. He placed on record the copies of Form 15J along with the sample copies of RC book of the vehicles of the individual truck owners. He also placed on record, the copy of Form 15I on sample business and submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly, are that the sub-contractor, recipient of the payment produces a necessary declaration in the prescribed format and further that such subcontractor does not own more than two goods carriages during the entire previous year. The moment, such requirements are fulfilled, the liability of the assessee to deduct tax on the payments made or to be made to such sub-contractors would cease. In fact he would have no authority to make any such deduction. 8. The later portion of sub-section (3) which follow the further proviso is a requirement which would arise at a much later point of time. Such requirement is that the person responsible for paying such sum to the sub-contractor has to furnish such particulars as prescribed. We may notice that u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r having deducted tax at source is not deposited within prescribed time. 10. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that since the issue the year under consideration with respect to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is identical to that of earlier years, no addition with respect to Rs. 1,06,20,979 is called for. With respect to the addition of Rs. 60,87,393/- which has been held by the CIT(A) to be bogus, before us Assessee has placed copies of Form 15J, 15I copies of RC books and PAN cards of the truck owners. These documents which are placed by ld. A.R. before us were not before lower authorities. We are therefore of the view that since the aforesaid documents were not before CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the evidence submitted bef....