THIRUMAGAL LUNGI COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2942/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that since the assessee had produced some evidence of TDS compliance and the recipients had disclosed income, the issue should be restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm did not deduct TDS on certain printing charges. The Assessing Officer disallowed 40% of these expenses under Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee argued that only 30% should be disallowed and that the recipients had already paid tax on the income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified when recipients had disclosed income, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce further evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in dated 22.08.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, Departmental Representative represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

There was a delay of 19 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition dated 16.02.2018 for condoantion of delay. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee stating that the delay was occurred on the reason that the first appellate order of Ld.CIT(A) received was misplaced. Hence, Managing Partner of the firm requested that the ld.A.R was not able to prepare the paper for filing the appeal in time. Therefore, ld.A.R prayed that delay of 19 days may be condoned. In my opinion, the reasons shown are justified and hence, delay in filing the appeal belatedly for 19 days before the Tribunal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.

It was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee is a partnership firm, which is doing business in trading of cloth and yarn. It was a submission that it was noticed in the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee had not deducted TDS in respect of certain expenses representing printing charges. It was a submission that the ld. Assessing Officer had disallowed 40% of the total expenses by invoking the provisions of the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was a submission that at the outset, as per provisions of the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act only 30 percent of the sum payable is liable to be disallowed, if at all any disallowance is called for. It was further submission that recipients of the payment from the assessee have also disclosed the income in their returns and have paid tax on the same. It was a submission that consequently in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Ansal Lank Mark Township (P.)

Ltd., reported in [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Del.), the assessee may be granted an opportunity to produce evidences to show that the recipients have disclosed income in their returns and paid taxes. For this purpose, the assessee has produced Form No.26A certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in respect of Selva Vinayagar Textile Processor. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for granting the assessee an opportunity to establish the fact that the recipients have disclosed the income in their returns in respect of the payments made by the assessee to them and paid taxes thereon

5.

In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A)

6.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The assessee admittedly has produced evidence to show that one of the recipients has offered the income received from the assessee in its return and paid tax thereon. This being so, as it is noticed that the assessee was unable to produce all the evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer, in my opinion, in the interest of fair play and natural justice, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Lank Mark Township (P.) Ltd., referred to supra. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences to prove that the recipients in respect of TDS compliance u/s.194C of the Act have offered income in their returns and paid taxed thereon

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 22nd May, 2018, 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 →