RAKESH ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 541/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 April 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowances for godown rent and legal expenses, citing the assessee's claim of multiple payees below the TDS threshold. It restricted the disallowance of business expenses to 5% and deleted the disallowance for cash payments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal faced a significant delay in filing, which the Tribunal condoned. The appeal challenged disallowances related to godown rent, legal expenses, business expenses, and cash payments.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved the validity of disallowances made for non-deduction of TDS on rent and legal expenses, estimated disallowance of business expenses, and disallowance for cash payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194I,Section 40A(3),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, KOLKATA ‘SMC’BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, HON’BLE

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 13, Kolkata order dated 03.02.2020 passed in case No. 10011/CIT(A)-13/W-44(2)/Kol/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). 2. It emerges at the outset that this assessee’s appeal suffers from 150 days’ delay in filing. It is pleaded in condonation petition/affidavit that the relevant file/papers were not available. All these solemn averments have gone unrebutted from the assessee side. Hon’ble apex court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katji & Ors [1987] 167 ITR 0471 (SC) held long back that the cause of substantial justice prevails over all technical aspects. I thus treat this 150 days’ delay in filing as neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of communication gap at different levels. This appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits therefore.

3.

Coming to the first issue of godown rent disallowance of Rs. 1,97,300/- made in both the lower proceedings alleging assessee’s failure to deduct TDS thereupon, learned counsel only case is that the said payment(s) had been made to multiple godown owners and; in no case, the same exceeded the threshold limit of Rs. 1,20,000/- u/s 194I as prescribed for assessment year 2014-15. The revenue pleaded that there is no indication from the case filed as to whether there are multiple recipients in the instant appeal. The fact remain that apart from the assessee’s voluminous case records prima facie indicating more than a single payee, learned lower authorities have also not indicated anything to the contrary in their respective orders. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowances for this sole reason. Same order continues qua the second issue on disallowance of legal expenses disallowance of Rs. 39,000/- paid without deducting TDS as well since indicating multiple payees.

4.

The third issue raised at the assessee’s behest seeks to challenge @10% estimated disallowances of the business expenses of Rs. 64,10,036/-; coming to Rs. 6,41,003/-. Both the learned representative fails to dispute that neither the assessee has been able to prove the same to have been incurred only for the purpose of its business by filing all the supportive documents nor the lower authorities have pinpointed any failure therein. Faced with this situation, I direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance from 10% to 5% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

5.

Learned counsel does not wish to press that the assessee’s sixth substantive issue if electricity bill payment of Rs. 20,110/- smallness thereof. Rejected accordingly.

6.

Lastly, the issue of section 40A(3) cash payment disallowance of Rs. 9,15,132/-. It emerges during the course of hearing for the Assessing Officer’s original assessment order dated 17.11.2016 had not made any disallowance since he proceeded to invoke section 154 jurisdiction in his order dated 08.03.2018 to this effect. A perusal of the said order makes it evident that the Assessing Officer had not even discussed the list of the recipient which allegedly have exceeded the threshold limit prescribed for the relevant assessment year. Coupled with this, the hon’ble apex court in T.S. Balaram vs Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has settled the law long back that this rectification

More judgments on Section 194I

All 477 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →