SAMBHU GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 811/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 January 2019AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the requirements of the first proviso to Section 201(1) as the payees had filed their returns and paid tax on the amounts received. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid labour charges, and the AO disallowed a portion of these payments due to short deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) confirmed a part of this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted when payees have filed their returns and paid tax, fulfilling the conditions of the proviso to Section 201(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 201(1),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Hearing: 07.01.2019Pronounced: 23.01.2019

ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-15, Kolkata dated 08.02.2017 for AY 2010-11.

2.

The only grievance is regarding disallowance made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of short deduction of TDS.

3.

At the outset itself, we note that the assessee had paid labour charges of Rs.72,82,833/- and since AO noted that TDS was not deducted in respect of eight parties he disallowed corresponding payment of Rs.25,58,200/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) gave partial relief and have confirmed Rs.21,96,800/-. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal and has brought to our notice that the assessee has satisfied the requirements of 1st proviso to sec. 201(1) of the Act which has been held to be retrospective in operation. We note that the payees have furnished their return of income u/s. 139 of the Act and has taken into account the amount paid by the assessee for computing income in their return of income and has Sambhu Ghosh., AY- 2010-11 paid the tax due on the income declared by them in such return of income and payees have furnished the certificate to this effect from Chartered Accountant’s certificate in Form No. 26A which is found in compliance to CBDT Notification No. 37/2012. In such a scenario, no disallowance was warranted. Therefore, we direct deletion of the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We direct deletion of addition of Rs.21,96,800/-. This ground of appeal

of assessee is allowed.

4. The last ground is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. Hence, the same is dismissed.

5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (P. M. Jagtap) (Aby. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member

Dated : 23rd January, 2019 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)\ Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Shri Sambhu Ghosh (Prop. of M/s. Swastik Enterprises) 85, S. K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700 048. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-49, Kolkata. 2 3. CIT(A)-15, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail) CIT- , Kolkata. 4.

5.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

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 →