THE SOFT TEX PROCESSING MILLS,PERUNDURAI vs. ADIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 808/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 March 2023AY 2019-20202 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had prima facie made a 30% disallowance in the computation of income, and the provided evidence supported this claim. Any further disallowance by the CPC would amount to double disallowance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a disallowance of Rs. 56.23 Lacs for want of TDS on interest payment. This disallowance was made by the CPC under Section 40(a)(ia) and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claims a reporting error in the Tax Audit Report and that a 30% disallowance was already made in the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest payment was justified, especially when the assessee claimed to have already made a partial disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28-07-2022 in the matter of an intimation issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 06-05- 2020. The sole grievance of the assessee is disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Rs.56.23 Lacs for want of TDS on interest payment. This default was reported in Tax Audit report and accordingly, CPC made - 2 - impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same since there was no representation by assessee during appellate proceedings. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Ld. AR submitted that the payment was made to resident and the default would attract 30% disallowance which was already made by the assessee in the return of income. In support, the ledger extracts as well as computation of income has been placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted that there was reporting error in the Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not furnish correct audit report at any point of time.

3.

After going through the computation of income, prima-facie the assessee has made disallowance of 30% for the default. The documentary evidences furnished before us support the claim of the assessee. Any further disallowance made by CPC would amount to double disallowance. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to verify the claim of the assessee and if found correct, delete the impugned disallowance as made by CPC.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01st March, 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 →