2016 (6) TMI 82 - AT - Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS on freight payment - Held that - As the appellant could not produce all cash vouchers as a result of which it is held that 20% of the total payment was in excess of ₹ 20,000/- to a single party. Thus, 20% of the total freight payment amounting to ₹ 71,218/- is disallowed as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act Non deduction of TDS on rental payment - Held that - As payment was less than ₹ 1,20,OOO/- p.a. and thus TDS provisions were not to be invoked. Hence the addition on account of non-deduction of TDS in respect of rental payment is restricted to the payments made to Shri Om Prakash. Hence, the addition made by the AO in Para 3 of the assessment order is partly allowed Addition on account of non-declaration of receipts - Held that - During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant gave a detailed paper book in which a copy of sales register for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 was given. As per the sale register duly reconciled by the appellant, the gross sale for the period under consideration were ₹ 1,67,79,883/-. Out of these receipts, the appellant had also included receipt of ₹ 1,08,815/- from M/s Jindal Mectec and ₹ 16,759/- received from M/s Timplex Industries. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the AO, that these two amounts were not shown by the appellant in his return of income. Thus the addition made in assessment order is hereby deleted Addition on account of capital introduced - Held that - Considering the facts of the case together with the remand report of the AO and the detailed submissions of the appellant together with the evidence filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant not only gave the affidavit of Shri Ram Kishan Saini, father of the appellant, but also, a copy of the relevant bank accounts from which the money had been withdrawn and deposited to the bank account of the appellant together with the evidence regarding the source from which the money was received by his father. Considering all these evidences. Thus hold that the appellant has been able to prove the genuineness of transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender. Hence, the addition of ₹ 10 lacs made by the AO on account of capital introduced by the appellant is hereby deleted Addition of unexplained addition to building account - Held that - On a perusal of relevant supports the same were found to be in order. However, there was one major discrepancy noted on a perusal of relevant bills/vouchers. The discrepancy was in respect of a bill of M/s Gaurav Steels, which was for an amount of ₹ 48,947/- instead of ₹ 4,89,424/-. When asked to give an explanation of the difference between the two, the appellant was not in a position to explain the difference. As a result, the difference between the two accounts, to the tune of ₹ 4,40,477/-, is regarded as unexplained investment and is thus added to the income of the appellant. Thus the addition is limited to this amount Addition on account of unexplained additions to Plant and Machinery - Held that - During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant gave detailed break-up of the said addition along with relevant bills/vouchers, which were found to be in order. The AO S comments with regard to addition f the order have already been incorporated in his report while discussing addition made in Para 7 of the order. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of the order stands deleted.

Issues Involved:
1. Admittance of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
2. Deletion of addition due to non-deduction of TDS on freight payments.
3. Deletion of addition due to non-deduction of TDS on rental payments.
4. Admittance of additional evidence regarding non-declaration of receipts in ITR.
5. Deletion of addition related to capital introduction.
6. Deletion of addition related to unexplained addition to the building account.
7. Deletion of addition related to unexplained additions to plant and machinery.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admittance of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A:
The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to admit additional evidence during appellate proceedings. The Authority found that the Assessee was not given adequate time to submit voluminous details requested by the AO on 28.12.2010, with the assessment order being passed on 30.12.2010. The Tribunal agreed that admitting additional evidence was in the interest of justice and fair play. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. Deletion of Addition Due to Non-Deduction of TDS on Freight Payments:
The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had thoroughly examined the issue. The Assessee argued that freight payments were made to individual tempo operators on a daily basis, with no single party receiving more than ?20,000 per annum, thus not necessitating TDS. The Authority disallowed 20% of the total payment, amounting to ?71,218, due to the lack of all cash vouchers. The Tribunal found the Authority's order well-reasoned and upheld it, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

3. Deletion of Addition Due to Non-Deduction of TDS on Rental Payments:
The Tribunal reviewed the First Appellate Authority's findings, which differentiated between rental payments to different individuals. The Authority upheld the AO's invocation of Section 40(a)(ia) for payments to Shri Om Prakash, as the total exceeded ?1,20,000 p.a., but found that payments to Shri Pawan Kumar and Shri Mahesh Kumar were below this threshold. The Tribunal agreed with this partial allowance and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

4. Admittance of Additional Evidence Regarding Non-Declaration of Receipts in ITR:
The Tribunal examined the First Appellate Authority's findings, which confirmed that the Assessee had included receipts from M/s Jindal Mectec and M/s Timplex Industries in the gross sales for the period under consideration. The Authority found no merit in the AO's contention that these amounts were not declared. The Tribunal upheld this well-reasoned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

5. Deletion of Addition Related to Capital Introduction:
The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had accepted additional evidence, including an affidavit from the Assessee's father, bank statements, and a sale deed of land, to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of the ?10 lakh gift. The Tribunal found the Authority's order well-reasoned and upheld it, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

6. Deletion of Addition Related to Unexplained Addition to Building Account:
The Tribunal reviewed the First Appellate Authority's findings, which partially allowed the addition by disallowing ?4,40,477 due to a discrepancy in a bill from M/s Gaurav Steels. The Authority found the remaining supports in order. The Tribunal agreed with this partial relief and upheld the Authority's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

7. Deletion of Addition Related to Unexplained Additions to Plant and Machinery:
The Tribunal examined the First Appellate Authority's findings, which found the Assessee's detailed break-up and relevant bills/vouchers for additions to plant and machinery in order. The Authority deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal upheld this well-reasoned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the First Appellate Authority's well-reasoned orders on each issue. The judgment was pronounced in the Open Court on 06/05/2016.

← Previous Next →