9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2179 - AT - Income TaxDefault u/s 201 - disallowance u/s 40(a) - addition deleted in earlier years as assessee has in subsequent year either deducted tax at the time of payment or added back the relevant expenditure in P L Account and wherever TDS was deducted in subsequent year the same was remitted to Govt. Account - HELD THAT - In the present years no such report of the AO is brought on record to show that TDS is deducted in later years at the time of payment and remitted to Govt. Account or where payment was not made the provision of expenses was written back and credited to P L Account. Hence the assessee cannot get any relief in the present years on similar line as of earlier years. Rather one thing stands admitted that the liability of the assessee is there for TDS and since this liability is not discharged in the present years or in any subsequent year the issue regarding TDS u/s 201 (1) is also decided against the assessee and accordingly we dismiss all ten appeals of the assessee regarding demands u/s 201 (1) as well as levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) of IT Act. Assessee s claim u/s. 158A (3) is admitted and therefore assessee shall not be entitled to raise any question of law in the present five years before Hon ble Karnataka High Court u/s. 260A of IT Act and when the decision on the questions of law in Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 becomes final it shall be applied to the present 5 years also i.e. Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of demand raised under Section 201(1) of the IT Act. 2. Validity of demand raised under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act. 3. Applicability of tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions on 'expense provisions' debited to the profit and loss account. 4. Determination of 'assessee in default' status under Section 201(1) of the IT Act. 5. Impact of subsequent TDS deduction on the liability under Section 201(1) and 201(1A). 6. Relevance of previous judgments and circulars on the liability to deduct TDS on 'expense provisions'. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Demand Raised under Section 201(1) of the IT Act: The appellant contended that the CIT(A) and AO erred in holding that the 'expense provisions' debited to the profit and loss account would attract TDS provisions without any accrued liability to pay vendors. The tribunal noted that in previous years, the AO reported that the appellant had either deducted tax at the time of payment or added back the expense to the P&L account in subsequent years. However, no such report was presented for the current assessment years (2010-11 to 2014-15). Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding demands under Section 201(1), upholding the appellant's liability for TDS. 2. Validity of Demand Raised under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act: The tribunal referenced its earlier decision where it was established that the appellant had deducted and remitted TDS in subsequent years. Despite this, the tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deduction and remittance of tax. The appeals concerning demands under Section 201(1A) were dismissed, affirming the appellant's liability for interest on delayed TDS. 3. Applicability of TDS Provisions on 'Expense Provisions': The appellant argued that mere creation of provisions does not result in income creation for the payee, and thus, no TDS should be deducted. The tribunal, however, noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence that TDS was deducted in subsequent years or that provisions were written back. The tribunal upheld the AO's stance that the appellant should have deducted TDS when the expense was debited, as mandated by Section 194C(2). 4. Determination of 'Assessee in Default' Status under Section 201(1): The appellant was deemed an 'assessee in default' for failing to deduct TDS on 'expense provisions.' The tribunal dismissed the appellant's contention, affirming that the liability for TDS was not discharged in the relevant years or subsequently. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the appellant's default status under Section 201(1). 5. Impact of Subsequent TDS Deduction on Liability: In previous years, the tribunal had accepted the appellant's subsequent TDS deductions as mitigating the demand under Section 201(1). However, for the current appeals, the absence of evidence for subsequent TDS deductions led to the dismissal of the appellant's claims. The tribunal held that the appellant's liability for TDS remained, as no subsequent compliance was demonstrated. 6. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Circulars: The appellant cited various judgments and CBDT circulars to argue against the liability to deduct TDS on 'expense provisions.' The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the jurisdictional ITAT's decision in Bosch Limited vs. Income Tax Officer as "per incuriam." However, this did not alter the tribunal's decision, as the appellant failed to demonstrate subsequent compliance with TDS provisions. The appeals were dismissed, with the tribunal emphasizing the necessity of TDS compliance at the time of expense debiting. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed all ten appeals of the appellant, upholding the demands under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act. The appellant's claims were not substantiated with evidence of subsequent TDS deductions or provision reversals. The tribunal admitted the appellant's claim under Section 158A(3), stipulating that any future relief granted by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court for earlier years would apply to the current assessment years as well. The order was pronounced in the open court, finalizing the dismissal of the appeals.
|
