TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring total income of Rs. 2,66,060/-. Assessment was framed u/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2007 on total income of Rs. 2,58,62,993/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the matter was carried before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 15/05/2009 in ITA No.3667/Ahd/2008 restored the matter to CIT(A) for disposing the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 16/05/2012 (bearing No.CIT(A)-GNR/SET ASIDE/ITO-TDS PTN/55 2009- 10) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made. ii) No TDS was deductible on the facts of the case. I have gone through the factual aspects of the first contention. It is seen that the disallowances of expenses had been made based on the vouchers where payment was already made. I have verified this after calling the books of account, which- were duly produced before me (were produced before AO also, who had examined and commented on the vouchers also). None of the payee's concerned exists in the list of creditors as on 31/03/2005 as per the audited accounts. Therefore the fact is that the amount in question relevant to the expenditure claimed are paid during the year, and no amount remained payable at the end of the year. Followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 5.1. Before us, the ld.Sr.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports - 20 Taxman.com 244 and held that once the payments are made and no amount is payable as on 31st March of the relevant previous year, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made. She submitted that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sikander Khan Tunvar reported in (2013) 357 ITR 312 (Guj.) has held that the decision of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) does not lay down correct law. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, she further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which are payable at any time during the year. Before us, the ld. AR has not pointed out any contrary binding decision in his support. We further find that CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the issue needs to be re-examined at the end of the ld.CIT(A) in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and in accordance with law and, accordingly, remit the issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh. Needless to state that the ld.CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunities of hearing to both the sides. The assessee is also directed to promptly furnish all the details called for by the Authorities. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed for statis....