TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the learned commissioner of income tax appeals had erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s 250 of the I.T act, 1961(herein referred to as 'the act'). 2. For that the grounds of appeals are without prejudice to one another. 3. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had erred in consideration of the fact and the law that the notice u/s 148 of the act had been served to the appellant on 07:38 AM on 01.04.2022 which is barred by the limitations as per the provisions of the existing act. 4. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) should have considered the fact that the appellant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment. The A.O has not mentioned in the reasons recorded that escapement of income was because of failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 8. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the audit report duly concluded by the auditor of the appellant. 9. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the fact that the column 5 of annexure-3 of point no. 34(a) of the Form 3CD which Is read as 'Total amount on which tax was required to be deducted or collected out of (4)" had been filled as NIL by the auditor which clearly states that there was no any requirement by the appellant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the above order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be annulled. 14. For that the appellant craves to add, amend and alter any of the grounds of appeal during the proceedings of appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case as per the assessment order are that the assessee deals in the wholesale trading of sugar and had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 declaring the total income of Rs.10,10,280/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine low net profit or loss shown from large gross receipts for the A.Y. 2014-15. Subsequently, scrutiny assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.08.2016 and the income was assessed at the total income of Rs.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the head freight charges. After examination of the said details, it is found that the appellant has non-compliance of TDS amounting to Rs. 55,19,700/- ( Rs. 54,59,700/- u/s 194C and Rs. 60,000/- u/s 194J) on the account of freight charges. Hence, the said amount of Rs. 55,19,700/- has remained non-compliance of TDS is required to be brought under tax as per provision of Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing officer is restricted to the extent of Rs. 55,19,700/- only. Hence, the ground is noted as partially allowed. 4. The appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the same may be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessment was reopened on account of non-deduction of tax on the amount of Rs. 54,15,700/- for payment made to contractors and for non-deduction of tax on accounting charges of Rs. 60,000/-. The Ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 55,19,760/- and Rs. 61,12,102/-. The assessee filed the PANs of the transporters in the course of the appeal before us and stated that it was not liable for deduction of tax as per the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 194C as the aggregate payment did not exceed Rs. 75,000/-. Further, as per sub-section (6), in the case of the contractors owning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and furnishes a declaration to that effect along with his Permanent Account Number, to the person paying or crediting such sum. The Ld. AR submitted that earlier the requirement was only of furnishing the PANs and the amendment relating to number of vehicles owned had been made w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and was not applicable for the year under consideration. Prima face, the contention appears to be correct. Hence, in view of the legal provisions in this regard, Ground No. 11 is allowed. In respect of Ground No. 10, the Ld. AO is directed to verify the details furnish by the assessee relating to the PANs of the transporters and the provisions in this regard and after verification delete the addition as per law as the assessee contends that adequa....