2015 (12) TMI 1029 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under S.40(a)(ia) - Held that - The principle which emerges is that if the expenditure claimed was paid within the relevant previous year, no disallowance can be made under S.40(a)(ia). However, in the present case, assessee has to establish that the expenditure claimed was paid during the relevant previous year and nothing remained payable at the end of the year. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities on this issue, and direct the Assessing Officer to verify this fact and allow the expenditure if it is found that the entire expenditure claimed has been paid within the relevant previous year and nothing remains payable/outstanding at the end of the year. The assessee must be given reasonable opportunity of being heard on the issue. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of expenditure claimed on account of freight charges under S.40(a)(ia)
- Disallowance of commission amount under S.40(a)(ia)
- Interpretation of S.40(a)(ia) regarding deduction of tax at source

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling beedis, claimed expenditure on printing and agent's sales commission but failed to deduct tax at source on these payments, leading to disallowance under S.40(a)(ia).

2. The first appellate authority upheld the disallowance despite the assessee's argument that there was no contract obligating tax deduction at source. The assessee contended that the entire claimed amounts were paid during the relevant year, rendering S.40(a)(ia) inapplicable, citing relevant legal precedents.

3. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them as legal issues that could be decided based on existing facts. The Tribunal referred to a Special Bench decision stating that S.40(a)(ia) applies only if the expenditure claimed remains outstanding at the end of the year. The Tribunal also highlighted a High Court judgment supporting this interpretation.

4. Notably, the Tribunal emphasized that if the claimed expenditure was paid within the relevant year and nothing remained outstanding, disallowance under S.40(a)(ia) could not be justified. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the entire claimed expenditure was paid within the relevant year and allow it accordingly, providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case.

5. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the principle that disallowance under S.40(a)(ia) is warranted only if the expenditure remains outstanding at the end of the relevant year. The Tribunal's ruling favored the assessee, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and emphasizing the importance of verifying payment details before disallowing claimed expenditures under S.40(a)(ia).