ACE ENGINEERS,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 56/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 April 2015AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable if the payment is not outstanding at the year-end. However, since the assessee did not provide evidence of outstanding balances, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee made payments to M/s. Nachiar Steels for fabrication work. The Assessing Officer disallowed these payments under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable when the payment is not outstanding at the close of the financial year, and the need for the assessee to provide evidence for such non-outstanding status.

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(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, “B’’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. S. Dasgupta, IRS, JCIT
Hearing: 29.04.2015Pronounced: 29.04.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These two appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore, dated 17.11.2014 for the above assessment years. Since the issue in these two appeals is common in nature, hence these appeals are combined, I.T.A.Nos. 55 & 56/Mds/2015 :- 2 -: heard together, and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee in these appeals is with regard to disallowance made u/s.40a(ia) of the Act. Since the issue is common in nature in both appeals, we consider the facts as narrated in for adjudication.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was carrying on fabrication of equipments and heavy structural an other custom built machineries on job order basis. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of �66,59,517/- being payments made by the assessee to M/s. Nachiar Steels on the ground that no TDS was made by the assessee as required u/s.194C of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim made by the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (Visakhapatnam) and judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd in of 2013 dated 09.7.2013 held that sec 40(a)(ia) is not applicable when there is I.T.A.Nos. 55 & 56/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: no outstanding balance at the end of the close of the year relevant to the assessment yea in respect of these payment. However, the assessee has not brought on record, the details of outstanding expenses or schedule of sundry creditors showing whether the impugned amount is outstanding at the end of the close of the previous year relevant to the assessment year either in the name of the party or outstanding expenses. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to verify the claim of the assessee and the assessee shall place necessary evidence in support of its claim.

5.

Further, we make it clear that if the impugned amount is not outstanding at the end of the close of the assessment year in respect of the expenses either as outstanding expenses or as sundry creditors, this amount cannot be disallowed. This ground is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos.55 & 56/Mds/2015 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →