9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 5 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee in default - Held that - The assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter in view of the first proviso to section 201(1) r/w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act if the concerned payee has taken into account the relevant sum for computing income in his return of income furnished u/s. 139 and has paid tax due on the income declared in such return. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh in the light of first proviso to section 201(1) r/w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which are held to be applicable to the year under consideration being retrospective in effect.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT-A was justified in confirming the order of AO in disallowing the amounts under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. Whether the amounts paid were in the nature of commission requiring tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) The appellant assessee contested the disallowance of ?13,79,179/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the amount paid was not in the nature of commission. The CIT-A had confirmed the AO's order, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, a dealer of TVS brand motorcycles, offered discounts to sub-dealers and mechanics. The AO and CIT-A treated these discounts as commission, necessitating tax deduction under Section 194H. The Tribunal reviewed the nature of these payments and the relationship between the assessee and sub-dealers, concluding that the payments to sub-dealers were indeed commission, thus upholding the disallowance by the AO. However, the Tribunal found that the payments to mechanics aggregating ?1,89,900/- did not exceed ?2,500/- per person, and thus, Section 194H was not applicable. Consequently, the addition of ?1,89,900/- was deleted. Issue 2: Nature of Payments and Requirement of Tax Deduction under Section 194H The assessee argued that the payments were discounts, not commissions, and cited the Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs. Union Of India case to support the principal-to-principal relationship. The Tribunal, however, noted the lack of written agreements with sub-dealers and the AO's observations that the transactions were akin to commission payments. The Tribunal agreed with the AO that the payments to sub-dealers were commissions, thus requiring tax deduction under Section 194H. The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's contention regarding the retrospective application of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 201(1). It referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment, which stated that if the payee has filed returns and paid taxes, the assessee should not be deemed in default. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the payees had included the payments in their returns and paid taxes, potentially relieving the assessee from the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of ?1,89,900/- for payments to mechanics and confirming the disallowance of ?12,00,170/- for payments to sub-dealers. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of payees' tax compliance, in line with the principles set out by the Delhi High Court. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, providing the assessee an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the relevant tax provisions.
|
