9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 368 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C and 194A - TDS on reimbursement of expenses - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - This appeal was decided without being personally heard the assessee. Further the Ld.AR submitted that on identical issue in the case of M/s Annavarapu Enterprises (198 2017 (8) TMI 1613 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM this Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y.2006-07 and 2008-09 in the case of M/s Annavarapu Enterprises (1989) decided the appeal in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee required to be given an opportunity to present it s case before the CIT(A). Hence, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to examine whether the expenditure in question i.e., reimbursement of expenses attracts TDS or not and whether the case is covered by the decision of this Tribunal as argued by the Ld.AR and decide the appeal on merits - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to deduct TDS on transportation charges, security charges, and interest payments. 2. Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to non-appearance of the assessee. 3. Request for remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on merits and opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Analysis: 1. The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Visakhapatnam addressed the disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee, a C&F agent, failed to deduct TDS on transportation charges, security service charges, and interest payments. The AO disallowed the expenditure, leading to an addition to the returned income. The assessee contended that the transportation and security charges were reimbursement of expenses, thus no TDS was required. Regarding interest payment, the assessee claimed to have submitted Form 15G to the CIT, Vijayawada, exempting TDS. Despite the arguments, the AO disallowed the expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT. 2. The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s dismissal due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The CIT(A) based the decision on written submissions and upheld the AO's order without a personal hearing. During the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee's representative argued for a fresh opportunity to present the case based on merits. The representative cited a previous ITAT decision in favor of the assessee on a similar issue, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing. 3. The ITAT, after hearing both parties, noted the lack of personal hearing by the CIT(A) and the importance of providing an opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Citing precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, the ITAT decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to determine if the expenditure in question required TDS and to consider the ITAT's previous decision. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair and just hearing in tax matters. In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the opportunity for parties to present their case in tax disputes, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the legal requirements for TDS deductions on various expenditures.
|
