The Hon'ble Supreme Court In Hero Vinoth v. In The Light Of The Factual Findings, Which We Recorded Inthe Preceding Paragraphs, The Above Questions Of Law Does Notarise For Consideration. Accordingly, The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle,Madurai. ... Appellant -vs- M/s.Ontime Transport Company Limited,(Now Known as Ontime Industrial Services Limited)47, PSK Nagar, Rajapalayam-626 108.PAN:AAACO 8508 Q... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'B' Bench, Chennai dated 25.01.2018 in ITA No.91/Mds/2017 forthe assessment year 2010-11 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals I) Madurai dated 20.10.2016made in I.T.A. 0025/2016-2017 against the Assessment order ofDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Maduraidated 31.03.2015. [Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant / Revenue. 2.This appeal has been filed by the Revenue raising thefollowing substantial questions of law:-“1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis correct in law in not confirming thedisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) made by the AssessingOfficer when assessee did not comply withrequirements of sub-section 7 of section 194C whichexisted since 01.10.2009? 2.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal iscorrect in law in holding that the Form for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ furnishing the details of person to whom paymentswere made but TDS was not deducted was notified byCBDT only on 15.10.2010 without appreciating thaton 15.10.2010 no new Form was notified by CBDT tofurnish such particulars and that on 15.10.2010only sub-Rule 4 was inserted in Rule 31A as aninterpretation of provisions of sub section 7 ofsection 194C, which existed since 01.04.2009?” 3.The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has held as follows:-“4.We have considered the rival submissions oneither side and perused the relevant materialavailable on record. Section 194C(7) of the Actrequires that the assessee has to furnishinformation in the prescribed form. It is not indispute that the CBDT notified the form only on15.10.2010 which is admittedly applicable for thequarterly statement due on 15.10.2010 and notbefore that. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) hasrightly deleted the addition, hence, this Tribunaldo not find any reason to interfere with the orderof the lower authority and accordingly the same isconfirmed.” 4.We find that before the Tribunal, the Revenue has notpointed out the grounds now sought to be canvassed before us.In any event, we find that the questions of law raised are notsubstantial questions of law, especially when there is no suchpleading raised before the Tribunal. 5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth vs. Seshammalreported in (2006) 5 SCC 545, held that to be a question of law“involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for itlaid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from thesustainable findings of fact arrived at by the court of factsand it must be necessary to decide that question of law for ajust and proper decision of the case. 6.In the light of the factual findings, which we recorded inthe preceding paragraphs, the above questions of law does notarise for consideration. Accordingly, the tax case appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) True Copy abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Madurai. Corporate Circle, Madurai. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai Madurai 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.M. Swaminathan, sr 49912. T.C.A.No.467 of 2018 KGK(CO)SP(10/08/2018)