J.PRABHU,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3020/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 August 2015AY 2009-20104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer in light of the newly filed details. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee was awarded a contract and paid a sum after deducting tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses claimed for sub-contractors due to lack of details and made an addition. The assessee later provided details of sub-contractor payments.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of expenses for sub-contractors was justified without considering the details provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD

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, S M C BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN

Hearing: 03.07.2015Pronounced: 07.08.2015

आदेश /O R D E R

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai, dated 26.09.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Shri M. Karuppiah, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee was awarded a contract from M/s Omayal Achi Arunachalam Trust for `18,20,201/-. The said Trust paid to the assessee after deducting a sum of ` 41,246/-. The assessee entrusted the matter to two individuals and paid `17,78,955/- and offered the difference amount of ` 41,246/- for taxation. However, the expenses claimed by the assessee was disallowed and the Assessing Officer made an addition of `1,45,617/-. The only objection of the Revenue is that the assessee has not filed any details with regard to payments made to individual sub-contractors. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee has now filed details about the individual sub-contractors.

Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

I have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative also.

According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee has not filed any details before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, by following the decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320), the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

In the absence of required materials, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payments made to the sub-contractors on the ground that the assessee has not filed any details of the payment made to the sub-contractors, before him. The Assessing Officer estimated the income on the contract at 8% by applying Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has now filed the details with regard to payment made to individual sub-contractors. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside. The entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue in the light of the details filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 7th August, 2015 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →