ITO, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. PALANIYAPPAN, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 183/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 February 2017AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of certificates of tax payment by the payees. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of this new evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed interest payments on loans. The Assessing Officer disallowed these payments for non-deduction of TDS and added them to the income. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether interest payments are admissible when TDS was not deducted, and if additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH A, BENGALURU

Before: SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Heard together (2 matters)

CO.68/Bang/2016
I.T.A No.183/Bang/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

These are appeal and cross objection filed by the Revenue and the assessee , respectively, against the order of the CIT (A), Bengaluru-6, dt.08.12.2015, for the assessment year 2012-13

2.

Shri. M. R. Palaniyappan, the assessee, engaged in the business of providing of contract carriage Bus Service to the Commuters and in the Digging of Borwells, filed his return through E-filing on 25-09-2012 for ITA.183 & CO.68/Bang/2016 Page - 2 this asst year declaring an income of Rs. 2,60,720/-. The assessee claimed payment finance charges, interest and interest on loans as under:

3.

Since M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd., lndia Bulls Ltd., M/s. Sundaram HFC Ltd., M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribasu Ltd., are not covered u/sec.

194A (3)(iii), the AO held that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source U/Sec. 194A(1), but made the payments at Rs.1,25,40,612 /- without deducting tax , hence the said interest payments are inadmissible u/sec. 40(a)(ia) and added to the income. On an appeal, the CIT (A), relying this Tribunal Decision in the case of M/s Capital Pharma in 2013 dt 14.8.2014 for ay 2005-06, allowed the appeal.

Aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal with the following grounds:

ITA.183 & CO.68/Bang/2016 Page - 3 ITA.183 & CO.68/Bang/2016 Page - 4

4.

The assessee filed a CO , No.68/Bang/2016 , with the following grounds :

ITA.183 & CO.68/Bang/2016 Page - 5

5.

The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules , enclosing the certificates issued u/s 201(1) by (i)M/s. Sundram Finance Ltd signed by P Babu, CA Membership No 203358 on behalf of the company,(ii) M/s. Sundram BNP Paribasu Home Finance Ltd, signed by P Babu, CA Membership No 203358 on behalf of the company and (iii) Indiabulls Finance Ltd , signed by Neha Jain CA Membership No 511402 on behalf of the company and pleaded that they could not be produced before the AO or before the CIT(A) as he was not in possession of them. Since these documents are relevant for this proceedings in support of his claim that the payee has paid tax on the interest paid by him, they are related to the facts on the subject matter of appeal, he was not in possession of them at the time of assessment or before the first appellate authority, they were secured by him in May, August, September and October 2016, respectively, hence it was beyond his reach and control etc and hence pleaded to admit them. We have heard the rival contentions, find merit in the submissions and hence admit the additional evidence. Since, these certificates were not produced before the AO, this issue is remitted back to the AO to re- examine the issue in the light of the additional evidence and adjudicate afresh ITA.183 & CO.68/Bang/2016 Page - 6 after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the Assessee’s cross objection are remitted to the AO for re-examination and fresh adjudication .

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th day of February, 2017.

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 →