2016 (7) TMI 612 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that - We find that the expenses incurred is only towards promotion of business of the assessee and does not fall under the definition of work as defined in 194C of the Act. Hence there is no obligation to deduct tax at source in terms of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition towards notional rental income from house property - Held that - We find that the assessee has got three properties out of which one is used for self occupation, one is used for business purpose and the other is claimed to be used partly for business and partly for residence. The ld. AO had rightly determined the fair market value in respect of the said property in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We find that the assessee had not disputed the determination of the quantum of fair market rent in respect of the properties either before us or before the lower authorities. We find that the revenue is justified in making this addition which is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Addition towards accretion to capital account.
2. Addition towards difference in the balance of sundry creditor.
3. Addition towards foreign trip expenses.
4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Addition towards notional rental income from house property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition towards accretion to capital account:
The first issue concerns whether an addition of ?5,86,305/- towards accretion to the capital account could be made. The assessee, a trader in electronics products and authorized service center operator, introduced fresh capital during the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not convinced with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the fresh capital and made an addition of ?5,86,305/- as undisclosed sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this addition, noting that the assessee failed to provide a combined personal and business fund flow statement. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided to set aside this issue to the AO for a fresh decision based on the documents provided by the assessee, allowing the assessee to submit new evidence.

2. Addition towards difference in the balance of sundry creditor:
The second issue relates to an addition of ?1,42,145/- due to a discrepancy in the balance of sundry creditor M/s. Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The AO, after obtaining information under Section 133(6) of the Act, found differences in the balances. The assessee explained the differences, attributing them to service charges, reimbursement of expenses, and disputed amounts. However, the AO found the explanation untenable and made the addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT decided to set aside this issue to the AO for re-examination, directing the assessee to submit a reconciliation statement.

3. Addition towards foreign trip expenses:
The third issue involves an addition of ?1,50,000/- towards foreign trip expenses. During the hearing, the assessee's representative stated that this issue was not pressed. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed this ground as not pressed.

4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act:
The fourth issue is whether a disallowance of ?1,10,719/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was justified. The AO disallowed the amount paid to M/s. Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd for arranging a promotional trip for customers, citing failure to deduct tax at source as required under Section 194C. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the ITAT found that the expenses incurred were for business promotion and did not fall under the definition of 'work' as per Section 194C. Therefore, the ITAT directed the AO to delete the disallowance.

5. Addition towards notional rental income from house property:
The fifth issue concerns an addition of ?89,513/- towards notional rental income from house property. The AO found that the assessee had three properties, with one being used for self-occupation, one for business, and the third partly for business and partly for residence. The AO estimated the fair market rent for the third property and made the addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' determination of fair market rent and dismissed this ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the ITAT remanding some issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication and upholding others. The order was pronounced on 08.07.2016.

← Previous Next →