2014 (4) TMI 1143 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance of freight expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Held that - The second proviso to sec, 40(a)(ia) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013 is clarificatory in nature and hence the benefit of the same should be applied retrospectively. However, the correctness of this contention has not been examined by the tax authorities. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that this contention of the assessee requires examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside this ground to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the above said contention of the assessee and decide the same in accordance with law, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard. See ITO vs. M/s. Gaurimal Mahajan & Sons 2015 (3) TMI 770 - ITAT PUNE

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of freight expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Disallowance of rent expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Freight Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia):

The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,73,49,873/- for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence that certain payments were to agents of foreign shipping companies, which would exempt them from TDS under Circular No. 723. The assessee argued that only amounts 'payable' at the end of the financial year should be disallowed, referencing the Special Bench decision in 'Merlyn Shipping & Transports v. ACIT'. However, this argument was rejected based on subsequent High Court rulings (Calcutta and Gujarat) which clarified that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to all amounts payable during the year, not just those outstanding at year-end.

Additionally, the assessee claimed that the new proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which exempts disallowance if the payee has paid taxes, should apply retrospectively. The Tribunal, following decisions from Pune and Cochin Benches, restored this issue to the AO for examination, directing the AO to verify if the payees had included the amounts in their returns and paid taxes.

2. Disallowance of Out-of-Pocket Expenses:

The assessee pointed out a clerical error by the CIT(A) in recording the figure of disallowed out-of-pocket expenses. The CIT(A) mentioned Rs. 7,42,554/- instead of the correct amount of Rs. 20,64,401/-. The Tribunal acknowledged this error and corrected the disallowed amount to Rs. 20,64,401/-.

3. Disallowance of Rent Expenses:

The disallowance of Rs. 1,22,286/- as rent expenses was contested by the assessee, arguing that the CIT(A) failed to consider the AO's remand report. The remand report indicated that the expenses were for business purposes, but included Rs. 23,682/- for society charges of a residential house and Rs. 8,606/- for other personal expenses. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for reconsideration, along with the applicability of the newly inserted proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the applicability of the new proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and reconsider the disallowance of rent expenses. The correction of the clerical error in the out-of-pocket expenses was also ordered. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with TDS provisions and the retrospective applicability of amendments intended to rationalize tax disallowances.