WINSPIR COMMUNICATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1231/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 March 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the issues of creditor balances and capital introduced back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the differences. The disallowance of commission expenses was also remitted to the AO to verify payee tax payment status.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made by the CIT(A) regarding differences in creditor balances and capital introduced. The assessee also contested the disallowance of commission expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS.

What were the issues?

Whether additions on account of creditor differences and capital introduced are justified without proper consideration of assessee's explanations. Whether disallowance of commission expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) is valid when TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return or when payees have paid taxes on their receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 17.3.2020Pronounced: 17.03.2020

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ; : Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, New Delhi dated 06.12.2013 ‘f i ! ! relating to assessment year 2008-09 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

S F m 3nftcT 4. / ITA No:~1231/Del/2014

1.

That the CIT(A) had erred in making addition of Rs. 14,808.88 on account of difference in balance of the creditors duly supported by the reconciliation statement. CIT(A) had not considered the reconciliation statement explaining the difference in the balance of creditors in books of appellant and their creditors. It is prayed that the addition made by the CIT(A) be deleted.

. 2. That CIT (A) had erred in making addition on account of Capital Introduced during the year under consideration despite the facts that supporting documents in relation to the addition made were filed before the Assessing officer. So, it is prayed that the addition upheld by the CIT(A) may be deleted.

3. That CIT (A) had erred in allowing the disallowance of Commission expenses of Rs.3,81,398/- under section 40(a)(ia) by the Assessing Officer even when the TDS on commission expenses was deposited before the due date of filing return and the supporting evidence for the payment of TDS was filed before the CIT(A) along with the appeal filed. So it is prayed that the addition made be deleted as TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return.”

3.

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee

however, the issue raised in the present appeal is small and we proceed to decide the same after hearing the learned DR for the Revenue.

4.

The issue raised vide ground of appeal nos. 1 and 2 is against addition of Rs. 14,808/-. The said addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on account of non reconciliation of the sundry creditor account. The assessee had furnished the information before the authorities below which has not been applied. We are of the view that in the present facts another opportunity be allowed to the assessee to explain the difference in the sundry creditor account. Accordingly the issue is remanded back to the file of AO, who shall decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2 are thus allowed for statistical purposes.

3TBI3fT atftpT / ITA No:-1231/Del/2014

5.

Now coming to the second issue raised vide ground no. 3 which is against the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)

of the Act. The provisions of the Act have been amended and the Courts have held that in case the payee had paid taxes on the receipts received from the payer then there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the payer. The expenditure claimed by the assessee has been disallowed on the ground of non deduction of tax at source. We find no merit in the aforesaid disallowance and remit the issue back to the file of AO to verify the status of payment of taxes by the payees and then decide the issue in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th day of March, 2020.

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 →