2016 (8) TMI 52 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in deposit of tds - Addition U/s 40(a)(ia) of payment made towards Labour Charges - Held that - Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1.4.2005. Consequently, any payment of tax deducted at source during previous years relevant to and from AY 05-06 can be made to the Government on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. If payments are made as aforesaid, then no deduction u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Admittedly in the present case, the Assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and therefore the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition under the head purchase discount - Held that - An enquiry from the three parties ought to have been made by the AO to find out the truth of claim made by the assessee. The CIT-A also did not make such enquiries. We therefore, set aside the order of CIT-A on this issue and remanded the same to the AO to make enquiries from the aforesaid three parties and affording opportunities to the Assessee and decide the issue afresh Disallowance on motor car and telephone expenses and other expenses - Held that - Taking into consideration the fact that there were some defects pointed out in the TAR Tax Audit Report and keeping in mind that there is always an element of estimation involved in making such disallowances, we are of the view that the disallowance should be sustained at 10% of expenses as against 20% disallowance made by the revenue authorities. Disallowance made u/s. 24 - Held that - The disallowance cannot be sustained. It appears that the CIT-A has accepted the assessee s contention, but due to typographical error, it has been mentioned that addition is sustained. The submission made by the assessee before the CIT-A clearly shows that the assessee will be entitled to claim deduction u/s. 24(b) of the Act on the ground even if the assessee is assumed to be a coowner, yet u/s. 26 of the Act the claim of assessee for deduction ought to have been allowed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on labour charges.
2. Confirmation of addition under the head "purchase discount".
3. Confirmation of disallowance of motor car, telephone, and mobile expenses.
4. Confirmation of disallowance under Section 24 for interest on housing loan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia):
The first issue pertains to the confirmation of an addition of ?13,99,171 under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on labour charges. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction as the tax deducted at source was not paid to the credit of the Government before 31.03.2009, but only on 22.07.2009. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this decision. The Tribunal examined the legislative history of Section 40(a)(ia) and noted that the Finance Act, 2010, amended the section to allow deductions if the tax deducted was paid on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Virgin Creations, which held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010, is retrospective from 1.4.2005. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that since the tax was paid before the due date for filing the return, the disallowance was not sustainable. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

2. Confirmation of Addition under the Head "Purchase Discount":
The second issue involves the confirmation of an addition of ?8,76,400 under the head "purchase discount". The AO found discrepancies between the purchase and sundry creditors' party ledger and treated certain amounts as income not reflected in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessee contended that these amounts were reversals of cheques issued in earlier years that were not cleared. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, rejecting the assessee's explanation due to a lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal reviewed the ledger accounts and bank statements, noting that no payments were received from the parties, and the amounts were not reflected as discounts in the parties' accounts. The Tribunal found that the AO did not make necessary enquiries from the concerned parties and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to make enquiries and provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

3. Confirmation of Disallowance of Motor Car, Telephone, and Mobile Expenses:
The third issue pertains to the confirmation of disallowance of ?1,22,921 for motor car, telephone, and mobile expenses. The AO disallowed 20% of these expenses, citing personal use as per the Tax Audit Report. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, acknowledging the element of estimation involved, reduced the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, partly allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

4. Confirmation of Disallowance under Section 24 for Interest on Housing Loan:
The fourth issue concerns the disallowance of ?52,771 under Section 24 for interest on a housing loan. The AO limited the deduction to 50% of the interest paid, as the loan was sanctioned jointly with the assessee's spouse. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee had paid the entire interest and was entitled to claim the full deduction under Section 24(b). The Tribunal also referenced Section 26, which allows each co-owner to claim a deduction of ?1,50,000 if the property is self-occupied. Hence, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, providing relief on the issues related to Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 24, while remanding the issue of "purchase discount" back to the AO for further verification. The disallowance of motor car, telephone, and mobile expenses was reduced to 10%.

← Previous Next →