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

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.

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.

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.

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