2015 (6) TMI 1209 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s. 263 - revision ordered for short deduction of TDS - HELD THAT - This is merely a case of short deduction of TDS. Admittedly, the assessee has made labour payment or debited labour payment in the P L Account and deducted TDS i.e. @ 1%. At best this can be a case for short deduction. Short deduction no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). This view of ours is fortified by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. S. K. Tekriwal 2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein held Sec 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only when the two conditions, namely, that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted is satisfied. Where tax is deducted by the assessee under a wrong provisions of TDS and there is a shortfall, u/s 40(a)(ia) disallowance cannot be made. As the issue of short deduction is settled revision proceedings initiated by CIT u/s. 263 are invalid and hence, quashed. - Appeal of assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against revision order of CIT for short deduction of TDS.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from a revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) for short deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The assessment for the year in question was initially framed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT initiated revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act due to alleged short deduction of TDS on labor charges. The CIT contended that the TDS shortfall necessitated disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee argued that the TDS rate applicable was 1% under section 194C(2) as the case fell under subcontractor category. The CIT, unconvinced, directed the AO to revise the assessment, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the issue primarily revolved around the short deduction of TDS on labor charges. The assessee had debited a specific amount under labor charges but had deducted TDS at a lower rate, resulting in a shortfall. The Tribunal held that in cases of short deduction, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. Citing a decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. S. K. Tekriwal, the Tribunal emphasized that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could only be made when tax was deductible at source and had not been deducted. The High Court's ruling clarified that if tax was deducted under an incorrect TDS provision with a shortfall, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal found the revision proceedings initiated by the CIT to be invalid and quashed them, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the issue of short deduction of TDS had been settled by the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be imposed in cases of short deduction, as clarified by the High Court's precedent. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court.