ACIT-III Vs. RAJA CHKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on various grounds, which are as under: -

(2.) THE Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -II, Kanpur, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,484/ - without appreciating the fact that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable on non -deduction of TDS on commission and service charges whether "paid" or "payable". That the drawing of an over conscientious distinction between "paid" and "payable", to restrict the application of section 40a(ia) only to payable (unpaid) amounts, would defeat the very legislative intent behind section 194H which places obligation, on the person paying commission, to deduct tax at the time of credit or payment of the amount by cash or cheque.

(3.) THE Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in relying on the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT ( : 293 ITR 226), which pertains to the application of section 201(1) and the issue of double taxation at the hands of deductor as well as deductees, whereas the present case relates to application of section 40a(ia), which disallows certain prescribed expenses on which tax has not been deducted at source and/or the same has not been paid to government account within the stipulated time.