2023 (1) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') exercising his revision jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT noted from the assessment records that the assessee, during the year, had made total expenditure on account of freight of Rs.16,03,03,322/-, out of which freight charges of Rs.14,15,11,932/- was paid to Railway and Rs.1,87,91,390/- was paid to different parties, whereupon, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as required u/s 194C, was not deducted. The ld. PCIT, therefore, noted that disallowance @30% of the above expenditure was required to be made which the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. He, therefore, show caused the assessee as to why order of the Assessing Officer be not held as erroneous and prejudicia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In this case the TDS was made against expenditure of Rs.16,03,03,322/- on account of freight charges. Therefore, 30% of Rs.16,03,03,322/- i.e. Rs.4,80,90,997/- was required to have been disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee u/s.40(a)(ia) for non-compliance of sec 194C. On perusal of the record it is observed that out of total expenditure on account of freight Rs. 16,03,03,322/-, freight charges of Rs.14,15,11,932/- was paid to Railway and Rs.1,87,91,390/- was paid to different parties for lorry freight. Therefore, tax deduction on Rs.14,15,11,932/- on amount paid to railway was not required u/s.194C. Further, the ledger of lorry freight indicate that Rs.1,00,000/- was credited to Daria Singh on 21.01.2017.From the docum....