2019 (3) TMI 1128 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of suppressed receipt - service tax component which was received in subsequent year and paid in subsequent year - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of Ld.AR & Ld.DR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to AO for his verification whether the said amount is really a difference in tax component which was admittedly not shown by the assessee during the year under consideration. Thus, Ground Nos.1(a) & (b) raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure on payment of supervision charges - HELD THAT - No objection whatsoever been raised by the AO in respect of the claim of the assessee regarding supervision charges. Ld.DR did not controvert the same by bringing on record a contrary view in past and subsequent assessment by the ITAT or Hon ble High Court. Addition on account of non-furnishing of TDS details - non-explanation to summons u/s 133(6) - HELD THAT - The view of AO is bad in adding the said amount on account of non-furnishing of details and non-explanation to summons u/s 133(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) in confirming the same is set aside and the addition made thereon is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition made on account of suppressed receipt
2. Disallowance of expenditure on payment of supervision charges
3. Disallowance of amount on account of nonfurnishing of TDS details

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the addition made on account of suppressed receipt. The appellant contended that the amount in question was related to a service tax component received and paid in a subsequent year, providing proof to support the claim. The Tribunal noted the submissions of both parties and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes, directing further examination by the AO.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee challenged the disallowance of expenditure on payment of supervision charges. The appellant argued that the same expenditure had been allowed by the Revenue in previous and subsequent years, pointing to relevant assessment orders. The Tribunal observed that there were no objections raised by the AO in the past assessment years regarding the claim of supervision charges. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition, as the Revenue's stance during the year under consideration was found inconsistent with previous and subsequent years.

3. The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowance of an amount on account of nonfurnishing of TDS details. The appellant argued that the AO's addition based on non-furnishing of TDS details and non-explanation to summons under section 133(6) of the Act was unjustified. The Tribunal reviewed the documents provided by the appellant in response to the summons, showing that the details were furnished within the required timeframe. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's view was erroneous, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and deleting the addition made on this account. As a result, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed in part, and the appeal was partially allowed.