IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 48/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT            ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, sr. standing counsel 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 VIJAY BHARAT ROADLINES PVT LTD   ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      18.01.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 1. Ld. counsel for the Revenue submits that additional evidence should 
 not have been allowed to be taken on record by the CIT(Appeals) and 
 therefore, a substantial question of law arises for consideration.  We do 
 not agree. 
 . 
 2. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,34,91,490/- by 
 invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) 
 for failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source under Section 194C on 
 freight charges paid to the transporters.  The details of freight charges 
 paid to the transporters are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the assessment 
 order. 
 . 
 3. Before the CIT(Appeals) the assessee filed affidavits of the 
 chartered accountant and authorized representative who had appeared 
 before Assessing Officer, director of the company, Form No.15J filed in 
 the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) on 12th June, 2006 and 
 copies of Form 15-I received from the transporters.  A detailed chart was 
 also filed before the CIT(Appeals) to show and establish that Section 
 194C was not applicable in respect of certain payments. 
 . 
 4. Application under Rule 46A was filed along with the aforesaid 
 documents.  The CIT(Appeals) forwarded the said application and documents 
 to the Assessing Officer for his comments.  The CIT(Appeals) considered 
 the objections raised by the Assessing Officer.  It should be noted that 
 the Assessing Officer in his report had stated that he had made an 
 attempt to verify whether Form 15J had been submitted in the office of 
 Commissioner of Tax (TDS) on 12th June, 2006.  In spite of his request, 
 the CIT(TDS) has neither confirmed nor denied receipt of the said Forms 
 on the ground that the record is not traceable and that the register of 
 receipts was either misplaced or destroyed in the fire that took place in 
 Mayur Bhawan. 
 . 
 5. CIT(Appeals) did not take on record the affidavits but took into 
 consideration Forms 15-I and 15-J.  He also examined the claim of the 
 assessee qua some payments in respect of which it was stated that TDS 
 under Section 194C was not required to be deducted.  On the basis of the 
 aforesaid facts he deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing 
 Officer. 
 . 
 6. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the 
 Revenue on different grounds but in view of findings and facts which have 
 been recorded by the CIT(Appeals), we are not inclined to entertain the 
 present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.  No costs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 JANUARY 18, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 31 
 .