2013 (11) TMI 142 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) Held that - Following Merilyn Shipping and Transports 2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM - The word payable used in section 40(a)(ia) is to be given its natural meaning and, going by the strict interpretation section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to expenditure which is payable as on the date of balance sheet and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the previous year, without deducting tax at source The intention behind this provision is to curb bogus payments by creating bogus liabilities The transportation charges claimed by the assessee had been paid before the end of the financial year Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition under section 40(a)(ia) - TDS on transportation charges.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai concerned the deletion of an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 related to transportation charges. The Revenue contended that TDS should have been deducted on the payments made for transportation of goods. The Assessing Officer disallowed a specific amount under section 40(a)(ia) as TDS was not deducted by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later deleted this addition, leading to the appeal by the Revenue.

During the proceedings, the assessee argued that the issue was similar to a previous decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, Special Bench, in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports. The Tribunal in that case had interpreted the term "payable" in section 40(a)(ia) to mean amounts due as of March 31 of each year. As the transportation charges were paid before the end of the relevant financial year, the Tribunal held that there was no default in TDS deduction. The Tribunal in the current case agreed with this interpretation, noting that the transportation charges were paid before the end of the financial year, and hence, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to delete the addition under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and affirmed that the transportation charges were paid before the end of the financial year, aligning with the interpretation set forth in the previous Tribunal decision. As a result, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the original decision stood.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment clarified the application of section 40(a)(ia) regarding TDS on transportation charges, emphasizing the timing of payment and the interpretation of the term "payable" as crucial factors in determining the applicability of TDS provisions.