Sri. K R Santhosh Kumar, Bangalore Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.20/BANG/2020
Assessment Year : 2013 – 14

Shri K.R Santhosh Kumar,
No.20, 4th Cross,
Nagarbhavi 1st Stage,
Neear Matha National
School, Adarsh Nagar,
Kalyan Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 072.
PAN – CMGPS 1983 Q
APPELLANT 

Vs.

The Asst. Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Circle-3(2)(1),
Bengaluru.
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri S Ramsubramanian, C.A
Respondent by : Shri Elamurugu, JCIT (DR)
Date of Hearing : 02-12-2020
Date of Pronouncement : 04 -12-2020

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Present appeal has been filed by assessee against orderdated 07/11/2019 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Bangalore for assessment year 2013-14 on following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) inso far is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in lawand on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.56,19,628/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C of the Act on the transportation charges paid during the year.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance on the ground that the appellant did not produce the declaration from the transport contractorseven though the provisions of the Act does not require the appellant to get such declaration for the period prior to 01.06.205 as amended in Finance Act, 2015.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in lawand on facts in confirming the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(1a) of the Act eventhough the appellant is not required to deduct tax at source as theprovisions of section 194C(6) exempts the payer from deducting tax at source if PAN of the payee is provided.

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the PAN of the payees weresubmitted during the assessment proceedings and therefore, complied with the provisions of section 194C(6) and 194C(7).

6. That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (appeals) that the benefit of provisions of section 194C(6) are applicable only to those transport contractors who were covered by the provisions of section 44AE of the Act and such finding is perverse and contrary to the materials available on record.

To know more in details find the attachment file