IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T, VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA No.94/Kol/2019 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Kavita Kothari Vs. I.T.O., Ward 40(2), Kolkata PAN: AFLPK4043B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 21/08/2019 ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: captioned appeal filed by assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2007-08, is directed against order dated 18-12-2018 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), 12, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) dated 22.12.2009. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as follows:- 1. For that Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance under sec. 40(a)(ia) when deductee had paid taxes on income received from appellant and filed its return of income and therefore disallowance was not in accordance with law. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of handling charges of Rs.47,578/- when same were fully incurred for business purposes. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming estimated disallowance of Rs.5430/- under head telephone expenses when 2 ITA No.94/Kol/2019 Smt. Kavita Kothari same were fully incurred for business purposes and were allowable revenue expenses. 3. At time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasions. learned Departmental Representative ( ld.DR) was present for appellant revenue. In absence of any appearance of assessee, appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua assesse after hearing ld. DR for revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963. 4. At outset itself we note that in this case assessee has raised ground no.1 and stated that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Act should not be made, when deductee had paid taxes on income received by assessee and filed her return of income. ld. DR for revenue also agreed that if deductee had paid taxes on income, no disallowance should be made. 5. After hearing ld. DR for revenue, we note that it is fit case to remit back to file of Assessing Officer with direction to examine whether deductee has paid taxes on income received from assessee or not. If deductee had not paid taxes thereon, then there should be no disallowance. Therefore, we set aside impugned order of ld. CIT(A) and remit this issue back to file of Assessing Officer with direction to examine whether deductee had paid taxes on income received by assessee. assessee is directed to produce evidences/explanation to prove that deductee had paid taxes on income received from assessee. 3 ITA No.94/Kol/2019 Smt. Kavita Kothari 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 21 /08/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (A.T. Varkey) (A. L. Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Kolkata; Dated: 21/08/2019 *PP, Sr.PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant- Smt. Kavita Kothari, 13C Metro Heights, 114 Dr. Lalmohan Bhattacharjee Road, Kolkata-14. 2. Respondent.- Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(2), 3 Govt Place(W), Kolkata . 3. CIT(A), 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By Order Assistant Registrar, I.T.A.T, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Kavita Kothari v. ITO, Ward- 40(2), Kolkata