SHRI HARIBHAI P. UTTAMCHANDANI,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, BARODA

This appeal by the Assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-V, Baroda dated 22.07.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12.

The assessee is in the business of trading of Fire Crackers, Threads, Raincoats/Umbrella, Toys, Colors and Rakhi.

The return for the year was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 2,57,040/- on which no tax was deducted at source. The A.O. asked the assessee to show cause why the interest payment should not be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act since there is no deduction of tax at source.

Assessee in its reply stated that the payees have filed declaration Forms No. 15G and 15H and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. The A.O. was of the opinion that since Form No. 15G/15H are dated after the close of the financial year, the liability to deduct tax at source arose on 31st of March, therefore, failing to deduct tax at source disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) becomes imperative and accordingly disallowed Rs. 2,57,040/-.

Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has furnished the declarations in Form No. 15G/15H from the recipient of interest and, therefore, was not liable to deduct tax at source. It is the say of the ld. counsel that merely because the recipients have given the Form No. 15G/15H after the

Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the revenue authorities.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee has furnished the requisite declaration in Form No. 15G/15H as per the provisions of the Act. It is also true that the forms were dated after the close of the financial year. In our considered opinion, Section 197A does not specify as to the point of time at which such declaration is to be given. There is no dispute that the requirement of Section 197A of the Act has been admittedly satisfied in this case. We are therefore of the view that the rejection of Form No. 15G/15H filed by the assessee in the case in hand for the reason that the persons furnishing Form No. 15G/15H have given the same to the assessee after the close of the financial year cannot be sustained. Consequently, there was no default on the part of the assessee u/s. 197A and consequently there would not be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed.

The second grievance relates to the estimation of profit at 20%.

The A.O. found that on a total sales of Rs. 1.21 crores , the assessee has shown gross profit t Rs. 23,44,198/- which is around 19.23%. On comparing the gross profit with the gross profit shown in the preceding assessment years, the A.O. noticed that in A.Y. 2010-11 on sales of 51.88 lakhs, the assessee has returned G.P. margin of 24.17%. The A.O. was of the firm belief that there is a fall in

Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the profit has been estimated by the A.O. merely because the assessee was not maintaining any stock register. It is the say of the ld. counsel that the nature of business of the assessee is such that it is not practically possible to maintain the stock register. The ld. counsel further stated that the A.O. has not pointed out any specific defect in the method of accounting employed by the assessee. The accounts were audited and therefore there is no reason why the A.O. should have estimated the profit.

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. It is true that in A.Y. 2010-11, the G.P. margin was 24.17%. It is equally true that in A.Y. 2009-10, the G.P. margin was 17.31% and in A.Y. 2008-09, the G.P. margin was 12.23%. The A.O. has simply taken the gross profit margin of A.Y. 2010- 11 which was on a turnover of Rs. 51.88 lakhs. In the year in hand, the turnover of the assessee is 1.21 crores. In A.Y. 2008-09, the turnover of the assessee was also 1.21 crores on which the gross profit margin was 12.23% whereas the same is 19.23% in the year in hand.

Considering the past history of the assessee in the light of the aforementioned facts, we do not find any merit in the additions made by the A.O. and

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.