TRIDENT LEATHER,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Date of concluding the hearing : December 31st, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : January 23 , 2019 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM :-

1.1. Heard both parties. Case files perused.

2. I notice at the outset that the assessee’s revised grounds of appeal challenge both the re-opening as well as the lower authorities action disallowing its labour charges/wages charges of Rs.4,83,212/- and fabrication charges of Rs.3,45,000/-. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer had framed regular assessment in question on 21/12/2011. He thereafter formed reasons to believe that assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment on account of non-deduction of TDS inviting Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. He issued 148 notice dt. 18/07/2014, i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Learned CIT D/R fails to dispute that the Assessing Officer had nowhere recorded in his reopening reasons that the assessee had not disclosed all material relevant facts “fully” and “truly” thereby Assessment Year: 2009-10 Trident Leather giving rise to the impugned reassessment. He rather relies upon the assessee’s notings to believe that the payments in question attracted TDS deduction. I quote hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in this Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 339 (Bombay) and find no reason to accept Revenue’s instant argument as it still fails to prove from the case records that the assessee’s disclosure made was either not complete or not true. I therefore hold with the assessee’s case is squarely falls in first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Moreso, in view of the fact that both the lower authorities have failed to indicate as to in what manner the impugned deduction attracted TDS deduction so as to invite Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The assessee succeeds on its first legal ground therefore. Its later two substantive grounds on merits are rendered infructuous.