2013 (6) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of transactions in excess of job work charges - Payment to related parties - sectin 40A(2) - Held that - AO has not invoked the provisions of s.40A(2) but has disallowed the expenses only on the ground of being not verifiable and not incidental to the business of the appellant. Such observations of the AO are out of the context when admittedly the amounts were credited on account of payment of excise duty. The payments made on account of excise duty are verifiable from the copy of accounts itself. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO is not sustainable and accordingly deleted. In favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 40A(ia) - assessees submission that he deducted tax at source and remitted the same to the government on 27.5.2005 i.e. before 31.5.2005 - Held that - As per the provisions of Rule 30(1)(b)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1862, the tax deducted at source in question is required to be paid within two months from the last day of the Accounting year i.e. on or before 31.5.2005. Thus the remittance was within time. Hence dismiss this ground of Revenue. Disallowance of the expenses - Held that - AO has without asking for details disallowed in an adhoc manner the above said expenses. D.R. could not controvert the factual findings of the CIT(A). In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of job work charges as non-incidental to business.
2. Disallowance of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) for late deposit.
3. Disallowance of expenses as unverifiable.

Issue 1: Disallowance of job work charges as non-incidental to business:
The appeal concerned the disallowance of Rs.23,72,357 on transactions exceeding job work charges between the assessee and a manufacturing company. The AO disallowed the amount as not incidental to the business. The CIT(A) found the disallowance unjustified, noting that the transactions included excise duty payments by the job worker for the assessee. The AO's reasoning was deemed incorrect, and the disallowance was overturned. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fault in it.

Issue 2: Disallowance of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) for late deposit:
The second ground of appeal was related to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for late TDS deposit. The AO argued that the payment should have been made by 7th April, 2005, while it was done on 27th May, 2005. However, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the remittance was within the required time frame as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Issue 3: Disallowance of expenses as unverifiable:
The third ground of appeal focused on the disallowance of expenses by the AO due to lack of verifiability. The AO contended that the absence of maintained excise records made expenses unverifiable. The CIT(A) found the disallowance arbitrary as the assessee had provided necessary details, which the AO did not question. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of evidence to support the AO's disallowance. Consequently, this ground of the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all grounds, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of justifying disallowances based on concrete evidence and adherence to statutory timelines for TDS remittance. The decision emphasized the need for thorough assessment and proper documentation to support expense claims in business operations.