Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 07.3.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-
That under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in not admitting the additional evidences furnished under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.
That under the facts and circumstances the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made u/s. 68 for the share application / share capital received from Sh. Giyanender is unwarranted in law as well as on merits. 3. That under the facts and circumstances the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made u/s. 68 for the share
application / share capital received from Sh. Prakash is unwarranted in law as well as on merits. 4. That the addition of Rs. 75,000/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on advertisement exp. is unwarranted and unsustainable in law as well as on merits.
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee, submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in not admitting the additional evidences furnished under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, as a result thereof, the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made u/s. 68 for the share application / share capital received from Sh. Giyanender is unwarranted in law as well as on merits. It was further submitted that due to not admitting of additional evidences, the another addition of Rs. 10 lacs made u/s. 68 for the share application / share capital received from Sh. Prakash is also unwarranted in law as well as on merits. He further submitted that addition of Rs. 75,000/- u/s. 40(a0(ia) for non deduction of TDS on advertisement expenses is also unwarranted and unsustainable in law as well as on merits. In view of above, he requested that the additional evidences not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to the root of the matter and are very essential in deciding the issue of additions made u/s. 68 of the Act, hence, the same may be admitted and additions in dispute may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I find that it is undisputed fact that Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the Assessee has not admitted the additional evidences filed u/R 46A by the Assessee, which is reproduced in para no. 5.1.1. at Page no. 11 in his impugned. After perusing the same, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the additional evidences filed by the Assessee which is reproduced at page no. 11 of his impugned order are very essential to adjudicate the additions made u/s. 68 of the Act, but the same was not admitted. Therefore, we admit the additional evidences as discussed above and allow the ground no. 1 raised by the Assessee. In view of above, I remit back the ground no. 2 & 3, as mentioned in the grounds of appeal
, as aforesaid, to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, as per law, after considering all the additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A), which were discussed in para no. 5.1.1 at page no. 11 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. Needless to say that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. As a result, the ground no. 2 & 3 are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. As regards ground no. 4 relating to addition of Rs. 75,000/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS on advertisement expenses is concerned, I find that the AO has asked the details of TDS deducted in respect of advertisement expenses and found that the assessee made payments of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25000 on 12.7.2011 and 29.8.2011 respectively, without deduction of TDS. Therefore, AO applied provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the deduction in respect of these expenses. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) has observed that since the payments have been made for advertisement expenses which are apparently covered under the provisions of TDS deduction, therefore, he upheld the action of the AO. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is undisputed that assessee has made the payments of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000/- but not deducted the TDS, which is a mistake on the part of the assessee. However, in my considered opinion, as per Section 194C of the I.T. Act, expenses of Rs. 25,000/- should be allowed, as this sum does not exceed Rs. 30,000/- as prescribed in Section 194C of the Act and expenses Rs. 50,000/- may be disallowed. I hold and direct accordingly. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed.