2016 (5) TMI 976 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - In respect of payments made to Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding that there was no oral or written contract the assessee had with lorry operators as vehicles were hired whenever the need arose. This finding has not been controverted by the revenue before us. Hence, we hold that the provisions of section 194C of the Act cannot be made applicable to the payments made to Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Ltd. In respect of payment made to Rayana Paper Board Ltd. towards freight charges, we find that the same are merely reimbursement of expenses incurred by the said party on behalf of the assessee. We have perused the contents in pages 10 to 70 of the paper book containing details of freight charges including bills and money receipt from various parties. In view of the same, we are convinced that the provisions of section 194C of the Act cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. In respect of payments made to Samsuddin Pailan, we find that no specific arguments were advanced by the Ld. DR by controverting the findings of ld. CIT(A) and hence, we find no infirmity in his order in this regard. In respect of payments made to Das Enterprise, it is established by the assessee that the payment is made towards purchase of material and not for any contract. Hence, the provisions of section 194C of the Act could not be made applicable to the facts of this case. We find that the Learned DR was not able to advance any specific arguments before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground no. 1 of revenue appeal is dismissed . We also find that the assessee was not able to advance any specific arguments before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of this addition and accordingly the assessee s Cross Objection is dismissed. Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) - Held that - We find that the AO adjudicated this issue in detail with regard to payment made to each party. The Ld. AR before us was not able to prove that the case falls under the exception provided in rule 6DD of the I. T. Rules. Hence, we confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance on account of bogus purchases - estimation of gross profit by increasing it by 4% on the bogus purchases - Held that - Inflation of gross profit by 4% made by ld. CIT(A) would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. Disallowance towards donation - Held that - We find that the assessee has produced ledger account of donation and subscription account together with the supporting bills and evidences. From the same it can safely be concluded that the payments were made towards subscription to various puja committees and payments to Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Hence, we find that the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bata India ltd., supra is well founded. 1993 (3) TMI 89 - CALCUTTA High Court - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance on account of bogus purchases.
4. Disallowance of donation and subscription expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):
Facts:
- The assessee, a partnership firm, made payments to various parties for freight charges and interior decoration.
- The AO disallowed the expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.

Findings:
- For Air Transport Corporation (Assam) Ltd., there was no oral or written contract, thus Section 194C was not applicable.
- Payments to Rayana Paper Board Ltd. were reimbursements, not subject to TDS.
- Payments to Samsuddin Pailan were for labor charges, not requiring TDS.
- Payments to Das Enterprise were for purchase of goods, not subject to TDS.

Judgment:
- The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 194C was not applicable to these payments. The revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3):
Facts:
- The AO observed cash payments exceeding ?20,000, disallowed under Section 40A(3).

Findings:
- Assessee argued that payments were split below ?20,000 and some payments were for agricultural produce covered under Rule 6DD.

Judgment:
- The CIT(A) gave partial relief, but the tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance for the remaining amount as the assessee failed to prove exceptions under Rule 6DD. The revenue's appeal was allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.

3. Disallowance on Account of Bogus Purchases:
Facts:
- The AO treated purchases from three parties as bogus based on non-verification and conflicting statements.

Findings:
- The CIT(A) acknowledged the purchases but suspected inflated rates, thus added 4% to the gross profit on these purchases.

Judgment:
- The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add 4% to the gross profit, dismissing both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection.

4. Disallowance of Donation and Subscription Expenses:
Facts:
- The AO disallowed ?42,792 for lack of supporting evidence.

Findings:
- The CIT(A) allowed the expenses based on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Bata India Ltd.

Judgment:
- The tribunal found the payments were for business purposes and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The tribunal's judgment addressed each issue with detailed analysis, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions in most cases while partly allowing the revenue's appeal regarding Section 40A(3) disallowance. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed. The final order was pronounced on 20.05.2016.