2015 (10) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, we heard them together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Let us first take the assessee's appeal in ITA No.251/coch/2014. 3. The first ground of appeal is with regard to reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. 4. We heard Shri T.M. Sreedharan, the ld.senior counsel for the assessee and Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR. It is not in dispute that the assessment was reopened within four years by issuing a notice on 24-04- 2012. After completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) the assessing officer received AIR information in respect of freight charges paid to M/s Geep Batteries India Pvt Ltd, Acme Chemicals (P) Ltd and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). The assessee has not deducted tax for payment of freight charges. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. On the contrary, Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that even though the assessee claims that the receipt of Rs. 18,970 relates to next accounting year, no material is filed by the assessee before the lower authority. Even before this Tribunal, according to the ld.DR, the assessee could not file any details. Therefore, according to the ld.DR, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 18,970 due to the difference in freight charges accounted by the assessee and said to be received by the assessee on the basis of the AIR information. The only claim of the assessee before this Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee's appeal is with regard to disallowance of Rs. 60,74,224 towards lorry hire charges. The revenue also raised this issue in their appeal against deletion of addition of Rs. 28,89,12,411 by the CIT(A). 10. Shri T.M. Sreedharan, the ld.senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer disallowed Rs. 61,32,54,820 u/s 4(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessing officer himself accepted in the remand report that disallowance of only Rs. 30,71,97,689 is sustainable. After considering the objection of the assessee and the fact that the assessee has filed form 15-J and 15-I, the CIT(A) found that there cannot be disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of Rs. 28,89,12,411. Accordingly, the CIT(A) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee could not produce form 15-I to the extent of Rs. 60,74,224. According to the ld.DR, merely because the assessee has filed from 15-J / 15-I, the liability to deduct tax would not be absolved. Therefore, the assessing officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 12. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The total disallowance was Rs. 61,32,54,820 out of which the assessing officer himself admitted that the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 30,71,97,689. The only dispute is with regard to Rs. 28,28,38,187. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed form 15-I to the extent of Rs. 27,67,63,963. Section 40(a)(ia) provides for disallowance of the....