2014 (4) TMI 275 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Non-deduction of TDS Violation of Rule 46 for acceptance of additional evidence Held that - There is no violation of Rule 46A, the revenue could bring anything on this account assessee clarified that the information was already available in view of double Taxation Agreements CIT(A) rightly held that with respect to the the existence of DTAA with the countries of which the payees are resident photo copies of the order u/s 195/197 in the case of Aeroflot Russia Airlines and certificate in the case of HC Container (S) Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, photo copies of freight bills and other relevant material on record thus, no TDS was required to be deducted from the payees of the freight and cartage under reference, as neither section 194C nor section195 were applicable thus, there is no reason to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs.21,44,828 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
2. Violation of provision of Rule 46A with respect to acceptance of additional evidence.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs.21,44,828 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS:
The appeal pertains to the revenue challenging the Ld CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs.21,44,828 made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. The Ld DR argued that the assessee failed to deduct TDS from freight payments, justifying the addition. However, the Ld AR contended that Circular No.723 dated 9.9.2005 supported the non-deduction of TDS on the payments. The Ld CIT(A) extensively analyzed the issue and found that the payments were not subject to TDS, citing Circular No.723 and a similar tribunal decision. The Ld CIT(A) detailed the nature of payments made to various entities and the applicability of sections 194C and 195. The Ld CIT(A) considered the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements with the countries of the non-resident payees, along with certificates from tax authorities, and concluded that no TDS was required. The Tribunal upheld the Ld CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Violation of provision of Rule 46A with respect to acceptance of additional evidence:
The revenue also raised a ground alleging a violation of Rule 46A concerning the acceptance of additional evidence. The Ld DR failed to substantiate any violation of Rule 46A, and the only additional evidence presented were copies of orders under sections 195/197 by tax authorities, which the Ld AR argued were already available due to Double Taxation Agreements. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A as the additional evidence was not new and dismissed this ground. The Ld CIT(A)'s order included detailed analysis and reliance on various documents and legal provisions to support the decision to delete the addition of Rs.21,44,828. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments of both parties and examining the material on record, concurred with the Ld CIT(A)'s reasoning and upheld the deletion of the addition.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI, in the cited judgment, addressed the issues of deletion of addition under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS and the alleged violation of Rule 46A. The judgment extensively analyzed the facts, legal provisions, Circulars, and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements to determine the non-applicability of TDS on the payments in question. The Tribunal upheld the Ld CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, dismissing the revenue's appeal and finding no violation of Rule 46A in the acceptance of additional evidence.