ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SARANYA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 386/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 February 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Special Bench decision relied upon by the CIT(A) was reversed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for reconsideration in light of the Apex Court's ruling.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure of Rs. 83,60,775/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) deleted a part of this disallowance, holding that the amounts were not payable at year-end.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable for payments made during the year without TDS, and the applicability of Supreme Court's ruling on the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194J,Section 194A,Section 194I,Section 194H,Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI D. MANMOHAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

Hearing: 01.02.2018Pronounced: 07.02.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No.386/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer, vs. Saranya Electronics Private Ward-3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAHCS 7505 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: None For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of Hearing : 01.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VP. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad and it pertains to the A.Y. 2012-2013. Following grounds were urged before the Tribunal:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 57,93,447/- out of the total disallowance made of Rs. 83,60,775/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, holding that the amounts are not payable as at the end of the year, ignoring that the provisions are applicable in respect of payments made during the year without TDS being made. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Special Bench, Visakhapatnam, in the case of M/s. Merillyn Shipping &j Transport not considering the circular of CBDT in No. 10/DV/2013 (F.No.279/Misc./M-61/2012-ITJ, dt. 16.12.2013) 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Special Bench, Visakhapatnam, in the case of M/s. Merillyn Shipping & Transport not considering the fact that the said

decision is placed under interim suspension by Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh.”

2.

Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture, trading, design and development of electronics. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y 2012-2013 it declared a total income of Rs. 89,57,480/- which was originally accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act but, later converted into scrutiny case and accordingly issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of examination of books it was noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source while incurring the following expenditure.

Sl. Nature of payment Section Amount in No. Rs. 1. Audit Fees & Professional 194J 2,05,493 Charges 2. Interest other than on 194A 13,50,876 securities 3. Rent 194I 21,97,140 4. Commission 194H 3,01,400 5. Contract amount 194C 43,05,866 83,60,775

Therefore, the A.O. invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to make an addition of Rs. 83,60,775/-.

3.

Aggrieved, assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible in respect of the payments already made by the assessee in the light of the decision of the ITAT Special Bench, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merylin Shipping & Transport vs. Addl. CIT as well as the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate.

4.

Having regard to the decision of the ITAT Special Bench as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Hyderabad, the claim of the assessee was accepted and accordingly addition of Rs. 57,93,447/- made by the A.O. was set aside.

5.

Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and was also present in the Court today.

7.

We have carefully gone through the record. Since the decision of the ITAT Special Bench, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merylin Shipping & Transport vs. Addl. CIT (16 ITR 1) was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service vs. CIT (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5512 OF 2017, DATED 03.05.2017), we set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the latest ruling of the Apex Court.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07th February, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Hyderabad, Dated: 07th February, 2018.

OKK, Sr.PS

Copy to

1.

M/s. Saranya Electronics Private Limited, Plot No.A-7/1, Second Floor, Electronic Complex, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad – 500 026. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad. 3. CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File

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 →