MADHUMITA BASU,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata’s order dated 18.11.2016, passed in case No.177/CIT(A)-15/14-15/Cir-50/Kol, in proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee raises two substantive grounds in the instant appeal. Her former first ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action taking recourses to section 148 r.w. 147 reopening proceedings followed by the latter one seeking to delete section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Madhumita Basu Vs. DCIT, Cir-50 Kol. Page 2 ₹1,43,40,722/- on account of non-deduction of TDS on machinery charges; respectively.

We come to former legal ground first. A few facts need to be taken note of. There is no dispute that this assessee is an individual. Her return stood summarily processed. The Assessing Officer thereafter formed reason to believe that her taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. This followed the re-assessment dated 28.10.011 disallowing contraction payments of ₹1,80,51,163/- 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS.

Case file suggests that Assessing Officer formed yet another reason to belief of assessee’s similar taxable income having escaped assessment. Relevant re-opening reason recorded to this effect read as under:- “On perusal of profit and loss account, it is noticed that you have debited an amount of ₹1,43,40,772/- on account of machine hire charges during that year as per provision of section 194C of the Income Tax, 1961, you have required to deduct TDS at the time of making payment but you have failed to do so as mentioned in tax audit report in Form 3CD.” Suffice to say, this followed the re-assessment in question framed on 2403.2014 making the above disallowance of machine hire charges. The CIT(A) has upheld the same on both legality as well as merits.