9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1297 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of Freight expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Scope of Amendment in section 40(a)(ia) - Tax not deposited before the end of the accounting year - HELD THAT - Amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act 2010 has retrospective effect meaning thereby if the expenditure was incurred by the assessee in any month during the previous year and TDS was deducted but such TDS was deposited after expiry of accounting year but before due date of filing of the return then disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) would not be made. DR was unable to controvert this contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances we are of the view that as far as ground no.1 in all these three appeals are concerned they are devoid of any merit because the assessee has deducted TDS on these amounts and TDS was deposited before the due date of filing of the return. AO has made disallowance on the ground that TDS was not deposited before the end of the accounting year i.e. before 31.3.2005. Therefore ground no.1 in all three years is rejected. TDS on the payments made to truck owners for hiring the trucks - Revenue authorities have assumed existence of either contractor-ship between the assessee and other truck owners whose trucks were hired by the assessee for transport. There is no evidence on record. The assessee has ever entered into any contract or created any subcontract-ship with any of the truck owners. Assessee could be fastened with the obligations to deduct TDS if it has entered into a contract with truck owners. The assessee has only availed services of the contractor for transporting the goods from point A to B . All risk and reward for transporting the goods remain with the assessee. Therefore the ld.Revenue authorities have failed to appreciate that relationship of contractor and contractee was not existed between the assessee and the alleged truck owners. On this reason amongst other we are of the view that the orders of the CIT(A) are not deserve to be interfered with though by way of different reasons. e assessee cannot be held in default for non-deducting the TDS on the payments made to truck owners for hiring the trucks. Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable to the Asstt.Year 2005-06. Similarly we have held that there is no contractor-contractee relationship exists between the assessee and the truck owners therefore no TDS is required to be deducted Expenditure under the head car expenses and depreciation - CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance at the rate of 1/5th of this expenses - HELD THAT - As agreed that decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron Engg. Co. 2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT is not applicable to the case of the assessee as the assessee is a registered and firm and not a company. Since assessee failed to submit complete details therefore adhoc disallowance is made. We do not find any merit in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. Disallowance in respect of bad debts - HELD THAT - Revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances. The explanation of the assessee was that it was given as advance to the staff for business purpose i.e. it was to be incurred for hiring trucks. The ld.AO has considered as if it was given to the staff for their personal needs. The AO has considered it as advance to the staff. He has totally changed the meaning of the explanation of the assessee and even if it is an advance to the staff during the course of employment and staff does not return it then how it could be allowed as business loss is not understandable. Similarly the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee failed to bring any evidence to demonstrate the fact that how it was incurred in day-to-day business activity. The assessee has submitted audited accounts and ledger accounts demonstrating the fact that the amount was given to the staff. What other evidence can be submitted ? Therefore in our opinion the ld.Revenue authorities have not appreciated the fact in right perspective. We allow this ground of appeal and delete disallowance. Disallowance at the rate of 10% of the total expenses out of telephone and vehicle expenses 20% on car expenses and depreciation on car and 15% on travelling expenses confirmed
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Freight expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Enhancement of Freight expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance of interest expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ad hoc disallowance of car expenses and depreciation. 5. Disallowance of bad debts. 6. Ad hoc disallowance of telephone, vehicle, and traveling expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Freight Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia): The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of freight expenses by the CIT(A) in three cases, arguing that the assessee failed to deposit TDS on freight charges. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance based on the amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which allowed deduction if TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Gujarat High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. B.M.S. Projects P. Ltd., which confirmed the retrospective application of the amendment. 2. Enhancement of Freight Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia): The Revenue also contested the deletion of the enhancement of freight expenses by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had issued a notice to the assessee for an explanation regarding the non-deduction of TDS on certain freight payments. The assessee argued that payments to individual truck owners did not exceed the threshold limits for TDS deduction. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s analysis was based on the ITAT Special Bench decision in Merilyn Shipping & Transports, which was overruled by the Gujarat High Court. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS as there was no contract between the assessee and the truck owners, referencing the ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench decision in Mythri Transport Corporation Vs. ACIT. 3. Disallowance of Interest Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia): The Revenue's appeal also included the deletion of disallowance of interest expenses by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had deducted and deposited TDS before the due date of filing the return, thus no disallowance was warranted under Section 40(a)(ia). 4. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Car Expenses and Depreciation: The assessee contested the ad hoc disallowance of car expenses and depreciation confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal, noting that the disallowance was justified due to the lack of complete details provided by the assessee. 5. Disallowance of Bad Debts: The assessee also challenged the disallowance of bad debts. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the Revenue authorities had misinterpreted the assessee's explanation and failed to appreciate that the advances given to staff were for business purposes. 6. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Telephone, Vehicle, and Traveling Expenses: The assessee's appeal against the ad hoc disallowance of telephone, vehicle, and traveling expenses was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance due to the assessee's failure to provide complete details. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objections in the case of Kataria Movers and Transport Services, while rejecting the cross-objections in the case of Kataria Logistics Services. The Tribunal's decision was based on the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia), the non-existence of a contractor-contractee relationship between the assessee and the truck owners, and the lack of complete details provided by the assessee for certain expenses.
|
