AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e effected through the department. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Ahmedabad wrote a letter to the Tribunal on 3.12.2015 which was received on 5.11.2015 that service has been effected upon the assessee and email was also sent to the assessee. Thereafter, fresh notice was sent through the department, which has been duly served upon the assessee. Copies of the reports submitted by the AO are placed on record. In spite of service of notice, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. 3. With the assistance of the ld.DR, we have gone through the record carefully and proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 4. Solitary issue involved in both these appeals relates to quantification of disallowance, if any, required to be disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the Special Bench in the case of M/s.Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. ACIT, 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag) and held that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made qua the amounts which are payable by the assessee. As far as the amounts paid during this year, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made. The ld.CIT(A) has segregated both these amounts. Accordingly, the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 51,65,500/- was deleted by the CIT(A). This order is being impugned by the Revenue in its appeal, whereas, the amounts which were outstanding as on 31st March, and on which TDS has not been deducted by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance. Thus, addition was confirmed at Rs. 19,06,615/-. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 40(a)(ia) of the Act. All appeals are disposed of accordingly." Thus, the Hon'ble High Court has overruled the order of the Special Bench in the case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (supra). 8. In light of Hon'ble High Court's decision, we have to examine the facts of the present case. We find that the CIT(A) has rejected all arguments of the assessee on merit. It is worth to note the findings recorded by the CIT(A). It reads as under: "5. I have perused the facts and submission of the appellant. I have also perused the case laws relied on by appellant. After careful consideration of contention of both A.O. as well as appellant, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant in totality. With due re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant failed to offer any reply before A.O, in response to show cause, therefore verification of GRs become all crucial considering the grounds of appeal and contention of the appellant but appellant failed to show any of such GRs. The appellant in the statement of fact at point no. 11 contended (without prejudice) that CBDT circular No. 714 dt. 03/08/95, Question No. 9 stipulate that each bilty or each transport transaction shall be considered as separate contract and the A.O. has not given any finding to the fact that payment for each separate bilty /GRs/instruction/transaction exceeds the afore mentioned statutory' limit is a contrary contention in view of no explanation before A.O. and non production of any of such detail/evidences....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a tabular form as follows: "Meetali Road Carriers" Name of the Vendor Expenses Incurred Payments Made During the Year Payments Outstanding Balaji Transportation Corporation 75,600 - 75,600 Chetak Roadweways 55,200 - 55,200 Ganesh Freight Carriers 85,600 - 85,600 Mayur Roadways 63,600 - 63,600 Nanalal R shah 500,000 215,000 284,500 New Supreme Tran 1,705,000 1,480,000 225,000 Ravi Kiran Transport 4,282,115 3,385,000 897,115 R R Roadways 66,750 - 66,750 Shri Laxmi Transport 64,950 25,000 39,950 Surya Goods Carriers 91,800 50,000 41,800 Tejas Roadways 81,500 10,000 71,500 7,072,115 ....