RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 07/11/2024 Date of Order – 18/11/2024

O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 23/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019–20.

2 Raghav Agritech

–

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 by the Assistant Dir. of Income Tax CPC is bad in law and the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in confirming the same.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made by the Asstt Dir CPC in intimation passed u/s 143(1) without giving any intimation to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or electronic mode is invalid and bad in law and the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in confirming the same.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs 61,95,000/- made by CPC in intimation issued u/s 143(1) on a debatable and controversial issue is bad in law and the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in confirming the same. Further the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made by the Asstt Dir CPC in intimation passed u/s 143(1) by making adjustments that do not fall within the purview of adjustments that can be made under clause i to vi of sub- section 1a of section 143 is bad in law. Further the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue. 5 That the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in holding that since the tax at source (TDS) on payment of Rs 2,06,50,000/- to the building contractor has not been deducted u/s 194C, 30% of the amount paid to the building contractor i.e. Rs 61,95,000/- is disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194C of the act. On the facts of the case, the expenditure has been capitalised and has not been claimed as revenue expenditure and hence no TDS is required to be deducted.

6. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of interest u/s 234A, 234b and 234C of the act.

7. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble members.”

3 Raghav Agritech declaring total income of ` 6,26,010. The assessee firm is subject to audit and Audited Balance Sheet and Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CD, was also filed with the return of income and is on record of the Department. The learned Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore (hereinafter called as “the Assessing Officer”) processed the return of income and passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act on 03/01/2021, determining total income of ` 65,11,260. The intimation was received by the assessee vide mail on 20/01/2021. The assessee had made payment of ` 2,06,50,000, to the contractor for building construction and has not claimed payment made to contractor as revenue expenditure in its Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer made addition of ` 61,95,000, under section 143(1a) of the Act on the ground that TDS on payment of ` 2,06,50,000, to contractor for building construction has not been deducted and hence 30% of sum paid is disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) though the assessee had disallowed ` 3,09,750, being 30% of depreciation claimed by it. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority.

“As can be seen from the above Sec. 40(a) does not make any distinction between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. Therefore, Sec. 40(a)(i) covers both revenue expenditure and capital expenditure provisions of sec. 40 are in the nature of overriding provisions - It starts with the words "notwithstanding anything contrary in sections 30 to 38", which shows that even if an expenditure or allowance comes within the purview in all the sections from 30 to 38 as well as sec. 40, the provisions of sec. 40 will prevail. This rationale has been upheld by the Hon'ble Benches of Mumbai Tribunal in the cases of SPACO Carburettors (1) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Mum) 3 SOT 798 and V Kay Translines (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 2011-TIOL-318-ITAT-MUM. Therefore, I uphold the order of the CPC u/s 143(1) disallowing 30% of the amount

4 Raghav Agritech paid to the contractor without deduction of tax for violating the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(1). The appellant's appeal on this ground is therefore dismissed.”

“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— …….. (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 :”

5 Raghav Agritech