2016 (4) TMI 430 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - lesser deduction of tds - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - There are two angles to the matter The first is, whether it was a case of no deduction or not in the present case. The answer would be in the negative because, the deduction was already made at the rate of 1%. The second angle would be as to whether it was under a bona fide wrong impression that only 1% was deducted instead of 2%. The contention of the assessee was that, having realized that deduction was 2% instead of 1%, the amount of TDS has been paid with interest. It is also a matter of fact that, two separate rate of deductions have been provided for the same work of contractor, one is at the rate of 1% if the contractor is individual or HUF, whereas, it is 2% if the contractor is other than individual or HUF. The Tribunal, in view of facts and circumstances, found that, it is a bona fide wrong impression. As such, on the aspects of the bona fide wrong impression keeping in view the contention of the assessee that in the middle of year, there is change of law about the deduction, as well as on the non-availability of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), when the issue is covered by the Calcutta High Court Judgment in case of S.K.Tekriwal 2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration as sought to be canvassed. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act regarding disallowance of expenditure due to short deduction of tax at source.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act concerning the disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee due to short deduction of tax at source. The Revenue raised the question of law whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) was not proper, despite the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 194H and Section 40(a)(ia) in the present case.

The Tribunal, in its decision, relied on a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a similar case to conclude that no disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia) if there was a shortfall in tax deduction due to a difference in understanding or opinion regarding the taxability of payments under various TDS provisions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a short deduction of tax but had rectified the shortfall by paying the balance TDS along with interest. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal based on the Calcutta High Court judgment.

However, the appellant contended that the Calcutta High Court judgment was wrongly applied by the Tribunal as the facts of the present case were different. The appellant argued that the TDS was deducted at a lesser rate, but the payment was not credited to the Revenue in time, unlike the case referred to by the Calcutta High Court. The appellant emphasized that Section 40(a)(ia) disallows expenses if no deduction is made, and if TDS is made in the succeeding year, it would be admissible in that year, not the year of the claim.

The High Court analyzed the matter and concluded that the Tribunal's view aligns with the Calcutta High Court judgment, which suggests that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only in cases of no deduction. The High Court found that in the present case, there was a deduction made at a lower rate due to a bona fide wrong impression, and the shortfall was rectified by paying the balance TDS with interest. The Court noted that different rates of deductions were applicable based on the nature of the contractor, and in this context, the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

In light of the facts and the precedent set by the Calcutta High Court, the High Court found no substantial question of law to consider and dismissed the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of bona fide intentions in tax deductions and the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) in cases of genuine errors in tax deduction rates, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.