Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

October 2011

(2011) TIOL 530 ITAT-Kol. ITO v. Rajesh Kr. Garg A.Y.: 2006-2007.

By C. N. Vaze, Shailesh Kamdar, Jagdish T. Punjabi, Bhadresh Doshi
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 3 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Sections 40(a)(ia), 194C — When tax was not deducted at source on the basis of Form 15I received by the assessee from the payee and the assessee failed to file Form 15J with the jurisdictional CIT, disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis that the Form 15J was not filed in time with the jurisdictional CIT.

Facts:
The assessee, engaged in business of transportation of goods through hired trucks, made payments aggregating to Rs.28.01 lakhs in respect of 42 vehicles and actual payment was exceeding Rs.50,000 per vehicle, without deduction of tax at source since it had received declarations from the payees in Form 15I. However, the assessee did not file Form 15J within the prescribed time to the jurisdictional CIT. The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs.28.01 lakhs u/s.40(a)(ia), though the declarations were produced before him in the course of assessment proceedings, on the ground that the authenticity of receiving Form 15I is not discharged due to non-filing of Form 15J with the jurisdictional CIT. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) stated that the Act does not say that Form 15I is to be treated as non-est due to non-filing of Form 15J by the assessee with the jurisdictional CIT. He held that Form 15I comes into effect before the actual payment or crediting to the account takes place, whereas the due date for furnishing the particulars in Form 15J is 30th June following the financial year. The appellant was to stop deduction of tax on payments as and when he received Form 15I from the sub-contractor. He also observed that the AO had not doubted the existence of Form 15I at the time of making the payment by the assessee. He deleted the addition made by the AO.

Aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai ‘F’ Bench in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta v. ITO, (ITA No. 3317/Mum./2010, A.Y. 2006-07, order dated 20th May, 2011) and also by the decision of Ahmedabad ‘A’ Bench in the case of Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad v. Dy. CIT, (OSD) (ITA No. 2228/Ahd./2009, A.Y. 2006-07, order dated 29-4-2011).

The Tribunal found that the assessee had obtained Form 15I and filed during the course of assessment proceedings but failed to file Form 15J with the jurisdictional CIT. The Tribunal found the issue to be covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Vipin P. Mehta (supra). Following the ratio laid down by the said decision, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal decided this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.

You May Also Like