ASHA REAL ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 9 (1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 276/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 June 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's contentions regarding reversal of the amount and TDS deduction on the remaining part. Similarly, the issue of incorrect calculation of tax refund was also restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee disputed an addition made by the DCIT on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee claimed that a significant portion of the disputed amount was reversed in the subsequent year and the remaining amount had TDS deducted.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is justified when the amount was reversed in the subsequent year and whether the tax refund calculation was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 250,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C(SMC

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order

: June 28, 2022 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the DCIT's assessment on a total income of Rs 37,03,780/- against the Income of Rs 13,017,18/- (Rs 9,06,444/- as reflected in the Assessment Order and Rs.3,95,274/- accepted by the Appellant itself.) 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.24,02,058/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs.23,52,059/- has already been added back to the income of the next financial year 2011-12 by the Appellant itself and tax has been duly paid thereon 4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the written explanation of the appellant that labour charges booked in the name of Sri Puran Kumar Roy amounting to Rs.23,52,059/- was disputed and which the appellant did not accept and terminated its business dealings with the contractor and suo moto reversed it in the immediately following financial year 2011-12 5 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ignored the fact that as a result of the said addition, the same amount is being taxed Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asha Real Estates and Developers Pvt. Ltd. twice in two consecutive financial years, viz. F.Y 2010-11 and F.Y 2011-12 thereby violating the fundamental principle that the same income should not be taxed twice unless expressly provided in the Statute.

6.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to realize that there has been no/negligible revenue loss on part of the Income Tax Department as a result of the appellant’s actions. 7 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the appellant's ground relating to incorrect calculation done by the learned DCIT of the amount refundable to the appellant. In the Computation Sheet the DCIT had taken the tax paid by the appellant as Rs.18,68,745/- as against actual tax paid by the appellant Rs.29,91,680 (Advance Tax Rs.5,50,000/- and Regular Assessment Tax Rs.24.41,680/-). 8 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the fact that the appellant had duly deducted tax on Rs. 50,000 paid to Shri Puran Kumar Roy and deposited the same before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1).

9.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend the grounds of appeal

at the time of hearing.”

2. Ground No.1 – Ground No.1 is general in nature. The assessee has raised all the issues collectively in this ground, whereas the assessee in subsequent grounds has contested each of the grounds separately. Therefore, no separate adjudication is required in respect of Ground No.1. Our separate adjudication given on each of the subsequent grounds will cover the adjudication on Ground No.1.

3. Ground No.2 – Vide Ground No.2, the assessee has agitated the action of the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of Rs.24,02,058/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of Tax at source (TDS).

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 →