TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief of Rs. 69,32,084/- which was added under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (2) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A.) erred in giving relief of Rs. 17,36,100/- out of (1) above by not considering the necessity of filing Form 15J by the assessee to the prescribed authority for non-duction of tax. (3) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A.) erred in giving relief of Rs. 51,95,984/- out of (1) above by overlooking that the whole payment was made to transport agencies and not the individual truck owner.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to deduct tax at source in view of the second proviso to section 194C(3). It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer made disallowance on the ground that Form No. 15J was not submitted to the prescribed authority. It was further clarified that Assessing Officer wrongly stated in the remand report that Form No. 15I obtained from the truck-owners was not produced at the assessment stage. As regards payments of Rs. 51,95,984/- made to transporters without deducting tax at source under section 194C, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that it did not assign any particular portion of work to the transport operators. No sub-contract agreement, either written or oral, existed between the assessee and the truck operators or individual truck....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idual truck owner. 5. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the assessment order and submitted that before the Assessing Officer it was not contended that individual truck owners had filed Form 15I. It was produced before the ld. CIT(Appeals) for the first time. Ld. counsel referred to page 6 of ld. CIT(Appeals)'s order and pointed out that assessee had specifically refuted the contention of Assessing Officer that Form No. 15I was not produced at the assessment stage. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Stumm India in ITA No. 127 of 2009. In regard to disallowance of Rs. 51,95,984/-, wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence of payment made by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad submitted Form No. 15I, which has also been acknowledged in the remand report. Under such circumstances, it cannot be doubted that assessee had obtained Form No. 15I from the truck owner.. In the backdrop of this factual position, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta -vs.- ITO in ITA No. 3317/Mumbai/2010 vide order dated 20.05.2011, wherein it has been held as under :- ".............All these provisions indicate that the failure on the part of the assessee, who is the payer of the interest, to file the declarations given to him by the payees of the interest, within the time l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e result, Ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 7. As regards Ground No. 3, in which the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 51,95,984/- is assailed, it is not disputed that no sub-contract agreement, either written or oral, existed between the assessee and the truck operators or individual truck owners. Further, it is also not disputed that the services of different transport operators were taken merely for arranging the trucks on hire. But the payment was made directly to the truck owners. Under such circumstances, it could not be said to be a case of sub-contract being assigned to transport operators particularly when they had not taken any responsibility in regard to transportation of goods on behalf of assessee. We find that Hon'ble Ko....