DURAIRAJ RANJITH BABU,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3319/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 November 2019AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) should be applied. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of materials and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of supply of labour, equipment, and readymix concrete, had their assessment completed with an addition of Rs. 18,65,462/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS on machinery hire charges and labour contract. The assessee contended that the payees had already offered the income to tax.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted when the payees have already offered the income to tax and paid taxes thereon.

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, ‘B’ (SMC

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO]

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 17.09.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.

ITA No. 3319/2018 :- 2 -:

The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of supply of labour, equipment and readymix concrete. The return of income for the AY 2015-16 was filed on 24.03.2016 disclosing total income of Rs.13,88,190/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 10(5)

Chennai vide order dated 19.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs. 43,31,164/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of �18,65,462/- u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act, by 30% of machinery hire charges and labour contract, and interest on HDB Financial Services on the ground that assessee had failed to deduct TDS on the said payments.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. 3.

CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer should not have made disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in view of the fact that payees had already offered to tax the income in their hands and paid taxes thereon. As regards to the addition of depreciation, it is contended that assessee had failed to file details in view of the fact that books were lost in the floods caused in the year 2015.

ITA No. 3319/2018 :- 3 -:

5.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities.

6.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal relates to disallowance u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be applied to the present case deserves merit. Therefore we remit this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify all materials and evidence placed on record after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 7. allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 20th day of November, 2019, at Chennai.

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 →