SREE NIVAS BUILD TECH (INDIA) PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not for non-deduction of tax but for the non-genuineness of the transaction. Since the assessee could not substantiate the payment, the CIT(Appeals) rightly rejected the claim.
What were the facts?
The assessee raised an additional ground before the CIT(Appeals) regarding a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee claimed a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, but the Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of this payment.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) properly disposed of the additional ground regarding the genuineness of a payment, and if the disallowance was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI, Chennai, dated 30.07.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.
Shri V. Jagadisan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has raised an additional ground before the CIT(Appeals) with regard to disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). However, the CIT(Appeals) has not disposed of the same. Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to consider the additional ground raised by the assessee.
On the contrary, Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that it is not the case of non-consideration of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
According to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has disposed of the additional ground raised by the assessee by a speaking order.
According to the Ld. D.R., the additional ground raised by the assessee was with regard to payment of `5 lakhs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Assessing Officer, after considering the genuineness of the payment said to be made by the assessee to Mr. Alphonse Ligouri, found that no such payment was made. Hence, accordingly, he made an addition of `5 lakhs. The Ld. D.R. clarified that the disallowance was not made for non-deduction of tax but, for non-genuineness of the transaction.
Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), more particularly, pages 13 and 14 of the order, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the issue of TDS was not under consideration for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 during the period when the payment was said to be made.
Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee deducted tax of `5100/- on the payment said to be made to Shri Alphonse Ligouri during the year under consideration. In fact, the payment was made to Shri Alphonse Ligouri during the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and no payment was made during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, while considering the claim of payment of `5 lakhs during the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07, doubted the genuineness of payment and disallowed the claim of the assessee. As rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R., it is not the case of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure of the assessee to deduct tax. The disallowance was made because the assessee could not substantiate the claim of payment. When the genuineness of the payment itself is doubted, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee. Therefore, it may not be correct to say that the CIT(Appeals) has not disposed of the additional ground raised by the assessee with regard to addition of `5 lakhs. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) disposed the ground of appeal with regard to deduction of `5 lakhs. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026