MYNAH INDUSTRIES LTD.,HOSUR vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALME

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

All the appeals of the assessee are directed against the

respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

Salem. Since common issue arises for consideration in all these

appeals, we heard these appeals together and disposing the same

by this common order.

2 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

assessee. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing these appeals before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the

delay and admit the appeals.

the appeal folder, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeals on merit.

for non-deduction of tax. Shri V.M. Mahidar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has not deducted tax as required under Section 194A and 194C, 194-I and 194J of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer levied interest under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The non-deduction of tax makes the assessee to pay not

only interest but also the tax due. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

3 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before this Tribunal. The case of the assessee appears to be that the recipient of the amount paid tax. However, it is not clear whether the recipient has paid the

taxes. If the assessee failed to deduct tax as required under the statutory provision, the assessee has to be treated as assessee in default and the assessee is liable to pay not only tax but also

interest. But, the interest component shall be restricted to the date of payment tax either by the assessee or by the recipient. Since the assessee claims that the recipient has paid the taxes, and the date of actual payment is not clear from the material available on record,

this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue of levy of

interest under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re- examine the issue and bring on record the actual date on which the

recipient has paid the taxes and thereafter determine the interest payable by the assessee till the date of payment of taxes by the recipient to the Government.

4 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

5 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

₹32.34 per share instead of ₹48.63 per share. Since the fair market value is adopted as per the working of the assessee at ₹32.34 per share, according to the Ld. D.R., no interference is called for.

6 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

losses of ₹19,39,66,527/-. For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee declared the taxable income of ₹1,11,55,850/- and also paid tax of ₹40,39,976/- which included the self assessment tax of ₹24,33,090/-. Therefore, it is obvious that the assessee has not declared any loss from business for the assessment year 2012-13. Even for earlier years, no losses were declared. Therefore, there is no question of any set off of losses as claimed by the assessee. For the purpose of claiming loss, the assessee has to necessarily file the return of income before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer appears to have disallowed the so called brought forward losses as well as the losses pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has not filed any appeal and that attained finality. In those factual situation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is not eligible for set off of so called brought forward losses of the earlier year. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

7 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

Officer found that it is only an afterthought. This claim of debit note said to be received from M/s Sri Vasavi Industries Ltd. was raised before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer found that the brought forward losses cannot be allowed. Therefore, this claim of debit note was raised as alternative plea to set off the so called brought forward losses. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that as rightly found by the lower authorities, the claim of debit note from M/s Sri Vasavi Industries Ltd. is only an afterthought. Therefore, it cannot be allowed.

8 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

amount of ₹7,13,773/- towards excise duty on closing stock. The

Assessing Officer found that Section 145A of the Act requires to

include the value of excise duty paid on raw materials used for

production while valuing the closing stock. Therefore, debiting the

excise duty payable on the closing stock is against the provision of

law. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section

145A of the Act which reads as follows:-

Method of accounting in certain cases 145A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145,— (a) the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” shall be— (i) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee ; and (ii) further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) under any law for the time being in force, shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment. (b) interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received.

9 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

10 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

The first issue arises for consideration is addition of ₹25 21. Crores as unexplained investment.

11 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

assessee had no funds for making investment. The assessee has no other explanation to substantiate the source for making investment in M/s Atlanta Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition. Since admittedly the cheque issued by Shri Prashant Boogru was returned for insufficient funds, the assessee could not explain any other source for making investment to the extent of ₹25 Crores in Singapore. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.

12 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

assessee-company, there was increase in the share application money to the extent of ₹25 Crores. The assessee also claimed that the cheque received from Shri Prashant Boogru was returned. Having considered the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹25 Crores which included the addition of ₹17,89,02,182/-. No separate addition was made. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is part of addition made to the extent of ₹25 Crores, which was adjudicated in the earlier part of this order. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 3rd September, 2019.

Kri.

13 I.T.A. Nos.2433 to 2437/Chny/18

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondents 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A), Salem 4. CIT, TDS, Coimbatore. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.