TRIMURTI MINING SERVICES,MARGAO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 395/PAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 October 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK RIPOTE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of vehicle rental expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS under Section 194C. It also upheld the addition for cessation of liability under Section 41(1) as the assessee failed to prove the liability remained outstanding.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was heard ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf. The appeal challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether vehicle rental payments attracted TDS under Section 194C, leading to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and whether certain liabilities were correctly treated as cessation of liability under Section 41(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 41(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE

Hearing: 10.10.2023Pronounced: 13.10.2023

Date of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A), Panaji-1, Panaji's order in case I.T.A.no.348/CIT(A) PNJ-1/2014-15, dated 02.07.2018, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The same factual position has been continuing in all the preceding hearings right from 06.04.2022 onwards. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 I.T.A.No.395/PAN./2018 2. The assessee raised the following twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.1,53,013/- comprehending the vehicle rental as contract receipt liable to TDS u/s.194C of the Income Tax Act and consequently adding u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. without appreciating the facts of the case.

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.10,20,726/- holding the same as cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the income Tax Act, without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The appellant craves, leaves to add/alter any other grounds at the time of hearing.”

3.

We now advert to the first and foremost issue of sec.40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194C disallowance on account of the assessee’s failure in deducting TDS on the corresponding payments involving vehicle hire charges. A perusal of the case file reveals that the assessee has not been able to rebut either the Assessing Officer’s or the CIT(A)'s findings that the impugned payments indeed attracted TDS deduction and failure thereof results in sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance in question. We thus see no reason to reverse learned lower authorities findings under challenge.

3 I.T.A.No.395/PAN./2018 4. The outcome would be hardly any different in latter issue of cessation of liability u/sec.41(1) as well as the assessee could not prove the same having remained outstanding in the relevant previous year. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee did not have any business transactions with the said parties in the preceding assessment years. We thus affirm the impugned latter sec.41(1) cessation of liability addition in very terms therefore. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.10.2023.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →