TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s time barred by 63 days. In support of the reason for delay in filing the appeal ld. Authorised Representative has placed an affidavit of Mr. Rakesh Pandya, Asstt. Accountant of assessee firm i.e. M/s Shiv Build India. In this affidavit Mr. Rakesh Pandya, Asstt. Accountant has accepted that the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was received by the assessee on 30.08.2013 and was handed over to him for passing on to the concerned advocate for filing the appeal before the Tribunal but inadvertently he forgot to pass on the appealable order to the concerned counsel. Later on when he was enquired by the. Concerned ld. counsel, he realized his mistake of not passing on the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A)'s order to the office of couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 9,00,832/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-compliance of provisions of S.I94A. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of S.I94A are not at all applicable and hence, no disallowance is called for u/s 40(a)(ia). 2. The learned C1T(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- made by AO purely /on the basis of estimation after holding that the appellant has incurred V / such transportation expenses for Wet Mix Paver and Soil Compactor out of its undisclosed income. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 9,00,832/- interest of late payment to IOCL without appreciating assessee's case in its entirety. 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the submissions made by ld. Authorised Representative. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Through this ground assessee has challenged ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A)'s order confirming disallowance of Rs. 9,00,832/- in respect of interest for late payment to IOCL on which tax was not deducted at source by the assessee. We also find that assessee makes regular purchase of asphalt (bitumen) from IOCL. Assessee needs to make the payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the nature of interest which was paid on the loan taken but actually it is of nature of purchase cost of asphalt (bitumen) as the impugned amount has been paid in the course of making purchases. Therefore, the issue is raised in this appeal of not charging tax deducted at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest amount of Rs. 9,00,832/- is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishak Bharati Co-op Ltd. (supra). We further observe that ld. Authorised Representative has made an alternative submission by placing reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Janak Bhupatrai Parekh (HUF) vs. ITO in ITA No.2891/Ahd/2011 pronounced on 22.1.2016 wherein Co-ordinate Bench has followed the judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the arguments of the assessee in respect of non application of section 194D will be somewhat academic at this stage. We, therefore, refrain from making any observation on merits and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with our directions as above. We observe that the issue raised in this appeal is also covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Janak Bhupatrai Parekh (HUF) (supra) so much so that payment has been made to a Govt. owned Public Sector Undertaking namely IOCL. However, as we have already deleted the impugned disallowance of Rs. 9,00,832/- by following the judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishat Bharat Co-op. Ltd. (supra) we find it academic to adjudicate thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h "duty" / levy from the citizens and whenever a stamp paper is purchased from a vendor, such person actually pays "duty" to the Govt. It is not a case of purchase of any commodity. Thus, payment for purchasing stamp paper is nothing but payment of "duty" to the Government and hence, such payment is not hit by S.40A(3). Reliance is placed on CIT(A)'s order dated 06.03.13 in the case of "M/s. Universal Associates" (Pgs. 13-26 @ 22-25 of P/B. Para 8 to 8.3). Revenue has not preferred an appeal against the said order and hence, such order passed by CIT(A) has attained finality. In light of the above, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. 14. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of lower authoriti....