2014 (6) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s made to M/s. Jindal Roadways P. Ltd and M/s Shyam Trailor and Transport without deduction of tax at source u/s 194(c). 2.1 Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transport in the name and style of M/s. Chetan Road Lines. In the assessment framed u/s 143(3), the AO noticed that the assessee had paid hire charges of Rs.18,72,025/- to M/s. Shyam Trailor and Transport, out of which the assessee did not deduct tax in respect of Rs.11,000/-. The AO further noticed that the assessee had paid hire charges of Rs.43,73,530/- to M/s. Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd, out of which TDS was not deducted in respect of Rs.8,73,500/-. Therefore, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.8,84,500/- (Rs.11000+8,73,500) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l in deducting the TDS and if there is any shortfall in deducting TDS, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekriwal (supra). In view of that matter, we delete the disallowance of Rs.11,000/-made/confirmed by the AO/Ld.CIT(A) on this count. 2.2.1 So far as the non deduction of TDS in respect of the payment of Rs.8,73,500/- made to M/s. Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd Transport, it is the contention of the assessee that the Department has issued the certificate for non deduction of tax at source u/s 197 and the assessee has inadvertently omitted to deduct tax at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) disallowed the impugned amount of Rs.37,17,686/-. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the assessee has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 3.2 Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is the contention of the Ld.AR that payments have been made on different occasions on a single day and each payment has been less than Rs.20,000/-. Further, for the purposes of section 40A (3) as applicable in the assessment year under consideration, only single payment during the day has to be considered whereas the authorities below have aggregated all the payments made in a single day which is permissible under the amended provision only. On the other han....