TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance Rs. 2,00,000/- out of estimated Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head "Bus Running Charges". 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that out of the total claims in the Profit and Loss Account Rs. 52,11,411/-, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 10,00,000/- on an estimated basis under the head "Bus Running Charges", Rs. 9,84,766/- again under the head "Bus Running Charges" and Rs. 17,52,799/- u/s 40(a)(ia) under the same head, thus totalling to Rs. 37,37,565/-, i.e. 72% of the total claims and hence there was no justification for confirming the Assessing Officer's action. 4. The CIT(A) fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is arbitrary, without any basic and highly excessive." 3. Though several grounds were raised by the assessee, it could be seen that main issues are only three i.e. - "i) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of estimated disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under the head bus running charges. ii) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 9,84,766/- being bus hire charges; & iii) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for an amount of Rs. 17,52,799/-." 4. The assessee firm is represented by one of the partners Mr. M.C.Hari Krishnan. He submits that the lower authorities are not justified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....persons stating that the persons to whom the payments said to have been made have not confirmed such payments. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the disallowance. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the course of appellate proceedings called for comments of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer submitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that some of the parties have not replied to the notices sent by the Assessing Officer and the assessee could not give addresses in some cases and one party denied of having any amount received for the assessment year 2007-08. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the addition. 8. On going through the orders of the lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue. 9. The last issue in the appeal of the assessee is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 40()a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payments of Rs. 17,52,799/-. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed Rs. 17,52,799/- stating that assessee has not deducted TDS for the contract amounts paid. The disallowance was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) stating that disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is found to be in order. 10. On hearing both the parties, we find that this Bench is consistently holding that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) have no application, in case payments were already mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....122 of 2013 has held that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. Addl. CIT is good law. In that way, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. 4. But, at the same time, the learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax appearing for the Revenue has relied on three other judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court, in which their Lordships have held that the law stated by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. Addl.CIT was not acceptable. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, through their judgment delivered on 3rd April, 2013 in ITA No.20 of 2013 in the case of CIT vs. Crescent....