PRADEEP CHANDRA JHA,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T. CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 69/BIL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 January 2018AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remitted the issues regarding disallowance for non-deduction of TDS and truck running/transportation expenses back to the Assessing Officer for verification. However, the ad-hoc disallowance on conveyance, car, office, and telephone expenses was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in coal trading and transportation, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming disallowances made by the AO. The disallowances pertained to non-deduction of TDS on finance charges, inflated truck running and transportation expenses, and ad-hoc disallowances on conveyance, car, office, and telephone expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on finance charges is justified, and whether ad-hoc disallowances on transportation and other expenses are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri O.P. Chaudhury, DR
Hearing: 18/01

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 69/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Pradeep Chandra Jha, M/s. Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur Phil Systems, B-11, Sai Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur PAN/GIR No.AFHPJ 2341 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri G.S.Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri O.P. Chaudhury, DR

Date of Hearing : 18/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19 /01/ 2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-

Bilaspur, dated 6.12.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That under the facts and the law, the learned CLT(Appeals) erred in maintaining disallowance of Rs.21,86,0317- made by the learned AO u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of tax u/s 194A from financial charges paid to M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. And M s Magma Fin. Corp. Ltd., rejecting the explanations filed, Prayed that disallowance of Rs, 21,86,031/- is unjustified and be deleted.

2.

That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not following the judicial discipline in confirming the disallowance

2 ITA No. 69/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

u7s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.21,86,031/- by not considering the decision of Agra Bench of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Rajiv Kuniar Vs CIT reported in 109 DTR 33 relied upon by the appellant wherein it was held that proviso inserted to sec. 201(1) & 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01. 02.2012 was having retrospective effect.

3.

That the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in maintaining the disallowance of Rs.8.00,000/- out of truck running & transportation expenses by rejecting the explanations.

4.

That the learned CIT (A) further erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance of Rs.1,39,9047- which is 1/6th of Rs.8,39,4247- out of conveyance expenses, car expenses, office expenses & telephone expenses made by the learned AO which is unjustified & be deleted.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the

business of trading of coal and coal transportation through his proprietorship

concern 'M/s. Phil System, Bilaspur'. It filed the Return of income for the

A.Y. 2010-11 on 02-10-2010 showing total income at Rs. 69.75,440/-. The

case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and therefore, the Assessing

Officer issued notice u/s 143(2)/142(1), in response to which, the counsel

of the assessee appeared from time to time, produced the books of account,

bills and vouches and other documents for verification. The Assessing officer

completed the assessment at Rs. 1,01,41,550/- by making additions on

different grounds to the total income.

3 ITA No. 69/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

4.

In respect of dispute issue of non-deduction of TDS, the Assessing

officer found that the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of payment

to NBFCs u/s. 194A of the Act and, therefore, by invoking the provisions

u/s.40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer made addition towards finance charges

of Rs.24,51,131/-.

Similarly, the assessee is in the business of transportation and the

Assessing Officer found that the assessee has claimed an amount of

Rs.4,10,46,223/- under the head truck running and Rs.9,17,00,267/- under

the head “transportation”. The Assessing Officer found that some vouchers

are missing and most of them are internal and, therefore, not amenable for

verification. Further the management of records is also very poor. As the

vouchers are not complete and are not available, the Assessing Officer found

that there is possibilities of inflation of expenditure in order to reduce the tax

and, accordingly, disallowed Rs.8,00,000/- on adhoc basis.

Similarly, the Assessing Officer, on perusal of profit and loss account

found that the assessee has claimed various expenses on conveyance, car

expenses, office expenses and telephone expenses. He has made

disallowance as the vouchers are self made and some are unvouched and

not fully open to verification. In view of above, the Assessing Officer

4 ITA No. 69/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

disallowed Rs.1,39,904/- and added the same to the total income of the

assessee.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried

the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).

6.

The CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the

dispute issues. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7.

Before us, the ld A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in estimating

the addition without considering the fact that that the assessee has obtained

certificate from C.A. in respect of NBFCs where the finance charges have

been paid. Ld A.R. also produced the copy of balance sheet and profit and

loss account and the CIT(A) has not considered application of Rule 46A and

no remand report from the Assessing Officer and prayed for allowing the

appeal of the assessee.

8.

Contra, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. In respect of first disputed

issue u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the contention of ld A.R. that the assessee is

having certificate of C.A. issued in respect of TDS and demonstrated before

us in paper book at page 1 to 4 explaining Form No.27A issued by the C.A.

5 ITA No. 69/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

On this issue, ld D.R. submitted that this information was not available with

the Assessing Officer. Considering the overall aspect of the fact that NBCSs

have offered its income, the matter has to be verified by the Assessing

officer. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the

claim of the assessee and pass order as per law.

10.

On the second disputed issue with respect of disallowance on truck

running and transportation expenses, ld A.R. emphasized that the assessee

is maintaining books of account and having vouchers. The Assessing Officer

has not specified any particular voucher which is not verifiable and making

adhoc disallowance. The Assessing Officer has not specified that the bills are

not genuine. The Assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of the

said vouchers but made the adhoc disallowance. Looking into the facts and

circumstances of the case, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing

officer. The assessee is directed to submit all the details and the Assessing

officer is directed to pass the order.

11.

In respect of third issue, we are of the considered view that the claim

of the assessee in respect of adhoc disallowance of Rs.1,39,904/- which is 1/6th of Rs.8,39,424/- out of conveyance expenses, car expenses, office

expenses and telephone expenses the findings of the CIT(A) is in order.

Hence, we confirm the same.

6 ITA No. 69/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

12.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19 /01/2018. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Raipur; Dated 19 /01/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Pradeep Chandra Jha, M/s. Phil Systems, B-11, Sai Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur 3. The CIT(A)-Bilaspur 4. Pr.CIT-Bilaspur 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Raipur

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 →