M/S. NQ SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 31.1.2017 for the assessment year 2013-

14.

requires no separate adjudication by me.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,45,000/- u/s.40(a)(ia)

of the Act for non-deduction of TDS by the assessee u/s.194-I of the Act.

2 ITA No .188/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made payment of

Rs.3,45,000/- on account of rent without deducting the tax at source.

Therefore, by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, he

disallowed Rs.3,45,000/-.

outstanding amount payable at the end of the year, therefore, in view of

the decision of Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of

Merilyn Shipping & Transports, 136 ITD 23 (Viskhapatnam SB) and

decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vector Shipping

Services (P) Ltd, 357 ITR 642 (All),no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) was

warranted.

case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT, 47 TAXMANN.COM 310(H.P), wherein,

it was held that section 40(a)(ia) was applicable both the amount which

was shown outstanding as at end the of the relevant previous year as well

as the amount paid during the previous year, dismissed the appeal of the

assessee.

Accountant to the effect that the assessee M/s. NQ Solutions India Private

Limited has paid Rs.3,45,000/- to M/s. Transoceanic towards rent

u/s.194-I of the Act, and that the payee has shown this amount of

3 ITA No .188/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4

Rs.3,45,000/- as its income in the return of income filed for the

assessment year 2013-14 and paid due tax thereon and hence, no

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was warranted in the hands of the

assessee,

Tribunal for the for the first time submitted that it was an additional

evidence and the same requires verification at the Assessing Officer’s end

and hence, matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing

Officer for verification of the same and then adjudication of the issue

afresh.

remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication

of the issue afresh as per law taking into consideration the C.A. certificate

filed by the assessee to evidence that the payee of the amount has shown

Rs.3,45,000/- as its income in the return of income filed and paid tax for

the same and, therefore, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act was

warranted. Needless to mention here that the Assessing Officer will allow

reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence,

this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,000/- on account of

4 ITA No .188/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4

traveling & conveyance expenses made by the Assessing Officer on adhoc

basis.

authorities and materials available on record. The brief facts of the case

are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed

deduction on account of travelling and conveyance expenses of

Rs.36,932/- and that the expenses are supported by self made vouchers.

Therefore, he made an estimated disallowance of Rs.5000/- out of

expenses claimed by the assessee.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable and

hence, same should be deleted.

authorities.

Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) in ITA No.121/13 order dated 21.10.2015 has

held that it is not open for the Assessing Officer to make addition on

estimation basis without verifying that said expenses are genuine or not.

Mere fact that payments were made in cash on self-made vouchers, was

not a conclusive evidence to disallow the expenses. The Assessing Officer

had not brought on record any adverse evidence that expenses are not

5 ITA No .188/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4

genuine. and hence, the disallowance made was not sustainable in law. I

find that in the instant case, the facts are similar to the facts which were

before the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balbir Singh

(supra). Therefore, respectfully following the same, I set aside the orders

of lower authorities and delete the disallowance of Rs.5000/- made out of

travelling and conveyance expenses and allow this ground of appeal of

the assessee.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 0/10/2017. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 04 /10/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant :M/s. NQ Solutions India Pt Ltd., Plot No.146, Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack