Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA
Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.07.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2013-14.
The only grounds in this appeal taken by the assessee are in relation to confirmation of disallowance of purchases of Rs.7,24,716/- u/s 40(a)(ia) and confirmation of disallowance of labour charges of Rs.5,82,202/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2 Mr. Toshkumar Haribhau Patil On going through the profit and loss account, as per schedule 'I', the assessee has incurred expenses on account of labour charges and direct expenses. In the course of assessment proceedings, the complete details of the above expenses were called for. The assessee has submitted the list of parties of labour purchase of Rs.22,64,958/-. The assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on Rs.19,65,609/-. The assessee failed to make TDS as per the provisions of section 194C. Therefore, the addition of Rs.19,65,609/- was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act read with section 194C of the Act.
Before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no explanation in respect of Rs.6,58,691/- and the appeal was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A).
Before me assessee did not raise any ground regarding the addition of Rs.6,58,691/-. In respect of addition of Rs.6,24,614/- assessee submitted that the addition is not called for because section 194 does not apply to this payment. The assessee has submitted the bills which were not discussed in the grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the same. But Ld. A.R. submitted that in the similar kind of additional evidence was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and Tribunal has restored this matter back to the file of AO, therefore this matter may be restored to AO.
I have gone through the order of Tribunal in and admit the bills. Hence, I restore this matter back to the file of AO to decide the matter afresh in accordance with
In respect of addition of Rs.5,82,202/-, the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi) wherein the High Court has held that where assessee made payments without deducting tax at source under section 194J, since payee had filed return and offered sum received from assessee to tax, impugned disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) deserved to be deleted.
I find that deductee has already deducted tax at source. Therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. (supra), I restore this issue back to the file of the AO to decide it afresh as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2018.