INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. JAIDEEP KUMAR SHARMA
LAWS(IT)-2014-7-16
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 25,2014

INCOME TAX OFFICER Appellant
VERSUS
Jaideep Kumar Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

George George K., Member (J) - (1.) THESE two appeals at the instance of department are filed against the CIT(A) orders dated 29.3.2010 and 5.10.2011, pertaining to assessment years 2007 -08 and 2008 -09 respectively.
(2.) SINCE , common issues are involved in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, they were heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds raised for assessment year 2007 -08 are reproduced below: - 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,55,563/ - made u/s. of sections 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the assessee failed to comply the provisions of section 194J on the Lab Testing Charges 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88,689/ - made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the assessee failed comply with the provisions of Section 194C on printing the stationery expenses.
(3.) THE A.O. in the case of scrutiny assessment for assessment year 2007 -08, disallowed a sum of Rs. 64,55,563/ - and 88,689/ - by invoking the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A sum of Rs. 64,55,563/ - was disallowed by the A.O. by observing the following: - 23. .....................I am of the opinion that assessee was getting professional and technical services from SRL Ranbaxy Ltd., as such payments made to SRL Ranbaxy Ltd. covered u/s. 194J of the I.T. Act, 1961 and TDS has to be deducted at source on these payments. 24. As the assessee failed to comply the provision of section 194J or 194C, the expenses amounting to Rs. 64,55,563/ - are disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) and added back to total income of the assessee. .................. 4.1 A sum of Rs. 88,689/ - was disallowed by the A.O. for the following reasons: - 25. Vide order sheet entry dated 23.11.2009 the assessee was also asked to furnish party wise details of expenses for printing and stationary. In reply to this assessee has filed copy of the ledger account for printing and stationary expenses. Perusal of the same it is revealed that that assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 88,689/ - to M/S. WE ARE PRINTER. The assessee was required to explain whether tax has been deducted on payments to the above party. In response to this vide letter dated 30.11.2009, the assessee has stated that out of this payment amt of Rs. 48,520/ - is on account of purchases. If the assessee has got its MRI envelopes, visiting cards, forms, addresses, receipts book etc printed for the exclusive use of the assessee, it cannot be termed as purchases but it is purely job work liable for TDS u/s. 194C. 26. As the total amount paid during the year exceeded Rs. 50,000/ -= the assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s. 194C. Since, he failed to comply with the provision of section 194C, the expenditure amounting to Rs. 88,689/ - are disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) and added back to the income of the assessee. ................................................... 4.2 Similar additions were made on identical set of facts for assessment year 2008 -09 also by A.O.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.