ITO 26(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA ROADWAYS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4713/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 July 2016AY 2009-105 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the payee had offered the entire payment for taxation and paid taxes thereon, there was no loss to the Revenue. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was affirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 63,03,900/-. The addition was made on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance with Section 194C in payments to M/s. Raj Carriers.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted when the payee has already paid taxes on the income, despite non-deduction of TDS by the assessee.

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(2)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, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘SMC’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mutsaddi
Hearing: 15/07/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09/06/2015 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai deleting the addition of Rs.63,03,900/- made on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) as the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to M/s. Raj Carriers ignoring second proviso to section inserted by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. 2. During hearing the learned D.R. defended the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer by contending that since the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 194C of the Act, therefore, while granting relief to the assessee the learned CIT(A) ignored second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee Shri S.K. Mustaddi, defended the decision of the learned CIT(A) by explaining that the assessee duly placed a certificate from the Chartered Accountant certifying that Shri Iqbal Singh Arora offered the entire payment of Rs.36,03,900/- from All India Roadways for taxation in his return filed on 30.09.2009 and paid taxes thereon, therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Radhika Khurana (ITA No. 2081/Mum/2012 order dated 12.02.2015), Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 337/Agra/2013), Ananda Marakala (ITA No. 1584/Bang/ 2012 order dated 13.09.2013) (48 taxmann.com 402), G. Shankar (ITA No. 1832/Bang/2013 order dated 10.10.2014), Ballabh Das Agarwal vs. ITO, Virgin Creations (GA No. 3200/2011) (Koklkatta) order dated 23.11.2011.

3.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of transportation contract, having two partners namely Mr. Iqbalsingh Arora, and Jagajit Kaur Arora filed return on 31.03.2011 declaring income of Rs.2,16,330/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the assessment was reopened under section 148/147 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee filed month-wise details of crane hire charges and also filed party-wise details thereof. The learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain party-wise truck charges paid and TDS deducted thereon. The assessee through its written submissions dated 26.02.2014 explained the position and relied upon certain decisions. The learned Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.1 On appeal before the learned CIT(A) the submissions of the assessee were considered and it was found that since the payee has paid the taxes on the payments received from the assessee firm therefore no disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of payments paid to Raj Carriers without deducting the tax thereon. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal.

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 →