Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH : : JODHPUR
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 20.03.2018 emanating from assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.12.2016. The grounds of appeal
are as under :
1. That learned Income Tax officer as well as learned CIT (Appeal) has wrongly sustain addition on A/C of U/S 40(a)(la) for RS.1,06,913/- where as from no.26A was submitted. TDS was deposited in time. PAN no. of the dedicatee was AAACS4944A has already mentioned, wrongly the amount of Interest was paid to Sundram Finance, was disallowed RS. 1,06,915/- without any Basis. Sundram Finance has already paid to Tax on Interest.
2. That learned Income Tax officer as well as CIT (Appeal) has wrongly made lump sum addition for RS. 1,00,000/- on A/C of expenses of Buses where as no specific Item was disallow, no notice was given to the assessee for Jump sum addition Earlier year this addition was deleted.. It was also wrongly mention, that addition was also on agreed Basis. Assessee & AR has not agreed for this addition.
That no proper opportunity was given to the assessee before passing the order.
That Assessee reserved the right of addition & attraction in the ground.”
1.1 At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
We have heard ld.Departmental Representative of the Revenue and perused the records.
3. The first addition is disallowance of interest paid to Sundaram Finance of Rs.1,06,915/- on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) observed that assessee had made interest payment of Rs.1,06,913/- without deducting the tax at source. Therefore, AO disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.1 to 5.5 held as under : “5.1 In terms of the second proviso below section 40(a)(ia), inserted w.e.f 1.04.2013, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the payee. In the instant case, the payee, M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. has filed its return on 31.03.2015. As such, the assessee is deemed to have deducted and paid the TDS on the payment of interest to Sundaram Finance Ltd. on 31.03.2015.
5.2 As per the first Proviso below Section 40(a)(ia), if deduction and payment of TDS on any sum are made after the due date for filing of return of income for an assessment year specified in sub section (1) of section 139, then such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.
5.3 As discussed in Para 5.1 above, by operation of the deeming provisions of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) the assessee is deemed to have deducted and paid TDS on payment to Sundaram Finance Ltd on 31.03.2015. Since the due date specified in sub- section (1) of section 139 for filing the return of income for AY 2014- 15 by the assessee is 30.11.2014, the deemed deduction and payment of TDS on payment to Sundaram Finance Ltd. has been made after the due date u/s 139(1).
5.4 Therefore in terms of the first proviso below section 40(a)(ia), deduction is allowable in the previous year in which TDS is deducted and paid, i.e in the Previous Year 2014-15, relevant to AY 2015-16. Thus, so far as the AY 2014-15, under consideration, is concerned, the amount paid to Sundaram Finance Ltd. is not allowable as a deduction.
5.5 In view of the above discussion, the disallowance of Rs.1,05,774/-, made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia), is hereby upheld.”
4. Thus, there is no denial that Sundaram Finance had filed the Return of Income on 31.03.2015. Therefore, as per the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), ld.CIT(A) has held that said deduction will be allowable in A.Y.2015-16. We do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the facts and if it was paid during the F.Y.2014-15, then it shall be allowed as deduction for A.Y.2015-16, accordingly, this Ground No.1 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No.2 : 5. The Assessing Officer had disallowed to Rs.1 lakh out of expenditure on account non-submission of complete bills and vouchers for the expenditure. It is mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) in the order that assessee had admitted that bills and vouchers were not kept. Since assessee has not filed the supporting documents to claim the expenditure, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO, therefore, addition of Rs.1 lakhs is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No.2 is dismissed.
Ground No.3 : 6. Ground No.3 of the assessee has claimed that no proper opportunity was given. However, on perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is observed that Advocate, Shri A.L.Mehta had appeared before the ld.CIT(A) and filed the documents. Similarly, during the assessment proceedings, Advocate Shri A.L.Mehta had appeared before the AO. Therefore, there is no merit in the Ground No.3 that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee, hence, Ground No.3 is dismissed.
Ground No.4 is general in nature, hence, needs no adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No.4 of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th October, 2023.