2018 (2) TMI 1697 - AT - Income Tax

Addition towards difference in contractual receipt reported in the return with that reflected in Form 26AS - Held that - It is not in dispute that L&T had carried out rectifications in the account of the assessee and had accordingly updated its TDS returns which consequently had resulted in lesser contract receipts in the updated Form 26AS. The reliance placed on the updated Form 26AS by the assessee and filed before the ld CIT-A cannot be considered as an additional evidence filed before ld CITA as it is the document within the domain of the income tax department. Moreover, the ld CIT-A had only directed the ld AO to verify the said transactions with updated Form 26AS, which in our considered opinion, is fair and reasonable. The revenue cannot ask for any more opportunity than this. The interest of the revenue had been properly taken care by the ld CIT-A while directing the ld AO as above - Decided against revenue Receipt in the nature of contractual receipt OR rental income - Held that - We find that the assessee had actually shown the machinery hire charges from L&T Ltd in the sum of ₹ 7,88,104/- and included the same in the gross contract receipts and hence there is no scope of making any separate addition towards the same as rental income. This has been rightly considered by the ld CITA and accordingly we do not find any infirmity in his order.- Decided against revenue Addition of the Principal amount from which the interest was earned - Held that - We find that the ld AO had merely back worked the interest amount and assumed an interest rate of 8% p.a. and arrived at the principal portion at ₹ 4,00,000/- . This is absolutely without any basis. We find that the entire addition has been made only based on surmise and conjecture which has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT-A.- Decided against revenue Disallowance of wages - AO treated the expenditure of January 2011 on wages account for TISCO site at Jamshedpur as expenditure not recorded in the books of account - Held that - CITA observed that this submission of the assessee was not supported by any evidences and hence upheld the disallowance of the ld AO. We find that the ld CIT-A had rightly upheld the disallowance in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not deem it necessary to interfere with the said order in this regard. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - Held that - no evidences were submitted by the assessee to prove that the provisions of section 194C of the Act are not applicable to him in the instant case. Accordingly, we hold that the disallowance was rightly made by the ld AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With regard to the other claim of the assessee that the amounts were duly paid before the end of the previous year and accordingly, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would be applicable only for amounts payable at the end of the year is concerned, we find that the said issue is now settled in the case of Palam Gas Service vs CIT (2017 (5) TMI 242 - SUPREME COURT) wherein it was held that section 40(a)(ia) covers even the amounts paid before the end of the previous year. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of deleting the addition towards difference in contractual receipt reported in the return with that reflected in Form 26AS.
2. Justification of deleting the addition of ?7,88,104.
3. Justification of deleting the addition of ?4,00,000.

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to whether the ld CITA was correct in deleting the addition towards the variance in contractual receipt reported in the return and Form 26AS. The assessee, engaged in labor contract works, declared a total income in the return, but the ld AO observed a discrepancy in the contractual receipt figures. The ld CITA found that the updated Form 26AS contradicted the addition made by the ld AO, indicating that the reported contract receipts by the assessee were higher than those in Form 26AS. The Tribunal held that the reliance on Form 26AS was valid, as it is generated by the income tax department and subject to frequent updates based on payer corrections. The Tribunal upheld the ld CITA's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

Issue 2:
The second issue involves the deletion of an addition of ?7,88,104 by the ld CITA. The ld AO treated machinery hire charges as rental income, making a separate addition in the assessment. However, the Tribunal noted that the charges were already included in the gross contract receipts and the ld CITA correctly deleted the addition. The Tribunal found no basis for a separate addition towards rental income, as the charges were accounted for in the contract receipts. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.

Issue 3:
The final issue concerns the deletion of an addition of ?4,00,000 by the ld CITA. The ld AO backworked interest income and made the addition based on an assumed interest rate, which the ld CITA deemed speculative. The Tribunal agreed with the ld CITA, stating that the addition lacked a factual basis and was purely conjectural. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the ld CITA's decision to delete the addition, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the ld CITA's decisions in all three issues, dismissing the revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found that the ld CITA's rationale for deleting the additions was valid and based on the evidence and legal principles presented during the proceedings.