M/S. EKNATH B. HONRAO,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1135/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 August 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that payment-wise details were not fully available to the revenue. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted only to payments made to two specific individuals, Shri Chandrakant Patkar and Shri Yogesh R. Dhonge, whose individual payments exceeded the threshold.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a disallowance of Rs. 9,84,500/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS on payments to labourers. The assessee argued that most payments were below the Rs. 50,000/- threshold for TDS applicability.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to labourers is justified when individual payments are below the threshold, and whether the aggregate amount should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadekar
For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Hearing: 28.08.2019Pronounced: 30.08.2019

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-6, Pune dated 14.03.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The effecting ground raised by the assessee is as under :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,84,500/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He failed to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective as also the arguments and contentions advanced by the assessee in this regard.”

3.

Before me, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with the proviso to section 194C(5) of the Act. The quantum limit for TDS purposes in the relevant year under consideration is Rs.50,000/-. The relevant provisions of section 194C(5) of the Act are extracted hereunder :- “Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts of such sums credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year exceeds [fifty thousand] rupees, the person responsible for paying such sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be liable to deduct income-tax under this section.”

4.

For the reason of failure to make the TDS in respect of the payments made to the labourers, the Assessing Officer invoked the above-said provisions and made addition of Rs.9,84,500/-. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the list of payment to 23 parties without making TDS. Mentioning that the requirement of making TDS become eligible only in respect of payment to Shri Chandrakant Patkar (Sr.No.1) and Shri Yogesh R. Dhonge (Sr.No.22), the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that other payments are below Rs.50,000/-.

5.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

6.

On hearing both the sides, I find it is an admitted fact that such payment-wise breakup/details are not available to the revenue authorities. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the addition, if any, should be restricted only in respect of the payments made to Shri Chandrakant Patkar (Sr.No.1) and Shri Yogesh R. Dhonge (Sr.No.22) only. With these directions, I partly allow the claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the details filed before me and restrict accordingly.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above. Order pronounced on this 30th day of August, 2019. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक Dated : 30th August, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant;

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent;

2.3.

The CIT(A)-6, Pune;

4.

The Pr. CIT-5, Pune; िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “एक-सद"य मामला” /

5.

DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"यािपत "ित //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

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 →