TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has raised 11 grounds originally and thereafter vide letter dated 23/01/2020 filed revised grounds of appeal which read as under: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,58,789/- towards freight charges paid to M/s. East Cost Transport Company as no TDS was deducted U/s. 194C and the total payments exceeded Rs. 50,000 in aggregate during previous year. 3. The AO issued an order U/s. 154 adding Rs. 3,58,789/- the income of the assessee which was arrived as per order u/s. 143(3) dated 18/12/2007. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... G.I. Pipes and Fittings filed its return of income for the AY 2005-06 on 30/10/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 34,570/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) and selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 18/12/2007. Thereafter, notice U/s. 154 was issued and the amount of Rs. 3,58,789/- was added to the total income of the assessee as this amount being freights charges on which no Tax was deducted at source. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action and sustained the addition. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT and the Hon'ble ITAT set-aside the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e which is payable on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the year without deducting the tax. In the assessee's case, the amount of Rs. 3,58,789/- was paid to East Coast Transport Corporation during the year and no amount is payable as on 31/3/2005. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the decision of Ld. AO in making the disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision in upholding the same is not sustainable in law. In support of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports, Visakhapatnam vs. Addl. CIT. On the other hand Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble ITAT vide order dated 12/4/2011. 7. On plain reading of the provisions of section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen the assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year only when both the conditions provided in section 147 of the Act are satisfied. That is: 1. "The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income or profits or gains chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and; 2. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year or failure on part of the assessee to make a return....