2012 (11) TMI 1175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act for non compliance to provisions of section 194C of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act attracted on non payment of TDS dues in Government account beyond the due date for filing of appeal and the said amendment introduced by finance Act 2010 was retrospective in nature. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,97,000/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act for payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ucted was paid well before the due date of filing of return of income. It is therefore, the disallowances and thereby addition made by A.O. are not sustainable in law. He is directed to delete such expenditure. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 1,96,24,849/-." 6. Since ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the various decisions of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. These grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 relates to addition of Rs. 1,97,000/-made u/s 40A(3) of the Act for payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash. 8. The A.O. during the assessment proceeding observed that assessee has made payment to various pers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bour charges. The submission of appellant dt.18/04/2012 with copies of vouchers for such expenditure clearly reflect that payment of varied amount below 20,000 to various labour on a day is made through 'mukadum' i.e. supervisor and therefore section 40A(3) of the Act is not applicable. There is no finding to controvert this proposition of appellant which is an established practice of the trade. The appellant cannot be penalized for established practice of account keeping (one voucher for various payments on a single date through supervisor) and established practices of trade. Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Leader Transport & Co. Vs. ITO 6 ITR (TRIB) 229 AHD following Hon'ble Orissa High Court judgement in the case of M/s Aloo Supply....