VIJAYKUMAR VAIDHEESWARAN,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1661/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2023AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of TDS deduction needed to be verified by the AO. The AO was directed to allow the deduction if the TDS was paid and not allowed in AY 2018-19, ensuring no double deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a TDS deduction of Rs. 49,38,388/- in AY 2019-20, which was disallowed by the AO/CPC. This amount pertained to professional fees for which TDS was paid in AY 2019-20 but was disallowed in AY 2018-19.

What were the issues?

Whether a TDS deduction disallowed in a prior year can be claimed in the current year if TDS was paid in the current year. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in rejecting the additional ground of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, Shri Ujjwal Chavan
Hearing: 16.08.2023Pronounced: 22.08.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.49,38,388/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the TDS deducted and paid during the Financial Year 2018-19, Assessment Year 2019-20 but relevant to A.Y. 2018-19.

3.

The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income dated 30.10.2019, declaring total income of Rs.41,57,590/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short)/Central

(A.Y. 2019-20) Vijaykumar Vaidheeswaran Iyer vs. ADIT Processing Centre ('CPC' for short) vide intimation dated 08.06.2022 had disallowed the credit for TDS claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,82,18,874/- and had restricted the credit to Rs.2,76,42,874/- thereby restricting the refund to Rs.2,78,80,566/- as against the refund of Rs.2,84,56,570/- as per the return of income filed by the assessee.

4.

The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the addition/disallowance made by the A.O./CPC.

5.

The assessee by way of additional ground of appeal had challenged the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 to be allowed during the year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2019-20.

6.

The ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not claimed the said amount in his return of income nor was it claimed before the A.O. after issuance of notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.

7.

Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

8.

The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that during A.Y. 2018-19, the assessee was not entitled to deduct TDS and in the subsequent year, i.e., A.Y. 2019-20, the assessee had paid TDS amounting to Rs.49,38,388/-. The ld. AR further contended that the lower authorities have rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that the said claim was not made in the return of income nor was it raised before 143(1) proceeding before the A.O. The ld. AR stated that this issue in A.Y. 2018-19 was pending adjudication and prayed that the credit of the (A.Y. 2019-20) Vijaykumar Vaidheeswaran Iyer vs. ADIT impugned amount has to be allowed during the year under consideration if the same is not allowed in the A.Y. 2018-19.

8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short), on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that since the assessee has not claimed the said deduction in its return of income, the same cannot be claimed by the assessee during the impugned year. The ld. DR further stated that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee for the reason that this issue was not before the A.O. in 143(1) proceeding. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the A.O. for A.Y. 2018-19 vide order dated 12.02.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act had disallowed the impugned amount of Rs.49,38,388/- pertaining to the professional fees of Rs.1,64,61,292/- paid by the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the impugned disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee during the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2019-20 had raised an additional ground before the first appellate authority to allow the claim of deduction amounting to Rs.49,38,388/- being 30% of the professional fees of Rs.1,64,61,292/-, during the impugned year for the reason that the assessee had paid TDS during A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee without prejudice to the appeal pending before the appellate authority for A.Y. 2018-19 had sought for the said deduction during the impugned year, along with the other regular grounds of appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not claimed the said

(A.Y. 2019-20) Vijaykumar Vaidheeswaran Iyer vs. ADIT amount in his return of income and for the reason that the said issue was not before the ld. A.O. during issuance of notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act for the year under consideration. On perusal of the materials available on record and on hearing the rival contentions, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of the ld. A.O. to verify the fact that the assessee has paid the said TDS amount for the professional fees paid by the assessee. The ld. A.O. is also directed to allow deduction of the said amount after verifying the fact that the same was not allowed during A.Y. 2018-19 and to ensure that the assessee has not claimed double deduction for both the years, i.e., A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, subject to the outcome of the appeal preferred by the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19.

Hence, this issue is remanded back to the file of the ld. A.O.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2023.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →