AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... twice. None appears at the assessee's behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. Coming to merits, we notice that both the lower authorities' have invoked sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance of 1,19,95,048/- on account of non- deduction of TDS u/s. 194C of the Act on various head(s) of payments. The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion to this effect reads as follows:- "4. Written submission The A/R of the appellant submitted written submission, to substantiate its claim, which is re-produced as under: "We write the above references, wherein the A. O. has instructed us to make payment of the demand of Rs. 54,26,960/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indself. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide Notification No. 96 [F.No.1/6/69- ITCCI dated 21/08/69 - has rendered the following instructions - "Where the income determined on assessment was substantially higher that' the returned income, say twice or more than the returned amount The collection of the tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeals provided there were no lapse on the part of the assessee". As stated above, we have been assessed at much more than twice that of the income returned, in the assessment years, against which we have preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) and following the aforesaid instructions of the CBDL which Is "binding" on you and all the officers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble High Court at Delhi while rendering the judgment in the case of Maruti Udvog Ltd. Vs .Adl. CIT. reported in 264 ITR 487 (Del)has held that the AC has not acted in a reasonable way by directing the assessee to deposit certain amount as a precondition of staving the recovery of demand, pending the disposal of the first appeal by the learned CIT(A). The AC was directed by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi, not to take any coercive steps for recovery till the CIT(A) decided the assessee's case. 3. Reliance may kindly be placed on the following judicial pronouncements, including that of the jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, which is binding on your kindself: A. The jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the AC u/s. 220 (6) was held to not be in accordance with law and such order was held, liable to be quashed. Considering the aforesaid submission, the judicial pronouncements relied upon and the circular of the CBDT (supra), e would request your kindseif to kindly grant the stay of recovery of demand after seized for the assessment year referred to in above, till the appeal filed before the LD. CIT (A) is being disposed off. So, in the context we also prefer your honour that we have deducted the tax on the basis of order u/s 197(1) submitted by the deductee. In event of any shortfall of deduction of tax fully on the basis of declaration filed by the deductee on which several case laws can be produced at the time of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellant has not come up-with any evidence either before the AO or during the appellate proceedings that it has deducted the due TDS in respect of the impugned sum disallowed by the AO. It is also observed from the assessment order that having" regard to the lower deduction TDS certificates in respect of M/s Maheswari Transport Agency Private Limited and M/s Rohit Transport Organisation, the AO has given due allowance in respect of the TDS liability of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant's contentions that it has deducted TDS at a lower rate as per the certificates granted is bereft of any logic. As section 40(a)(ia) mandates that failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax entails disallowance, it was mandated upon t....