M/S. B.R. DUTTA,RAMPURHAT, BIRBHUM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), SURI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 29/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015
Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddym/S B R Dutta Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri-731101 Shibtalla Para, Rampurhat, Birbhum-731224 Pan No. :Aahfb 7626 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2014-15, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,60,796 Made By Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Suri Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Failure Of The Assessee To Deduct Tax At Source On The Payments Made To Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Although The Said Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Had Declared The Receipt Of Income In Their Return Of Income & Paid Taxes Thereon. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Was Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,90,520/-. The Assessee Is A Wholesaler/Distributor Of Fertilizer, Pesticides & Maintains Regular Books Of A/Cs. Which Is Audited U/S. 44Ab Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Debited As Amount Of 13,60,796/- To The Profit & Loss A/C. For Payment Of 2
For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 44A
…d tax at source, however, he filed proof to show that the recipient shows receipt as income and offered for tax and also filed AS 26A. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd., reported in 377 ITR 635 (Delhi-HC), wherein it was held that once the recipient offered the same for taxation, then it is allowable expenditure u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit to remit the matter 4 ITANo.29/KOL/2025 back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine this issue afresh and…
