2022 (11) TMI 1169 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of sundry creditors - CIT(A) noted in his order that the AO himself has admitted in the remand report that there were 05 parties whose names and amounts were same in the two lists submitted by the assessee and the total amount of creditors is also not disputed by the AO - HELD THAT - Since the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after calling the remand report from the A.O. which fact has not been disputed by the D.R, we find no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.1 of Revenue is dismissed. TDS u/s 194C - addition on account of freight expenses - HELD THAT - We find that in the instant issue the A.O. had failed to point out where the TDS was not deducted by the A.O. and also not treated the freight expenses in question as bogus. Therefore, we find force in the submissions for the Assessee. CIT(A) after calling the remand report from the A.O deleted the addition. From the careful perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we have noticed that he had deleted the addition after examining the remand report submitted by the AO - CIT(A) noted that the A.O. could not come up with even a single case where TDS was to be deducted as per law and there is no allegation of freight expenses in question were bogus. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition - In absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the D.R, we find no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground of appeal no.2 of Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Addition on account of loading and unloading expenses - assessee had not deducted the TDS on account of loading and unloading expenses - HELD THAT - We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had only restricted the addition to the extent TDS which was deductible and deleted the balance addition out of the total addition made by the A.O. Since the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we, therefore, confirm his order and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of sundry creditors.
2. Deletion of addition towards freight expenses.
3. Deletion of addition towards loading and unloading expenses.
4. Consideration of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on loading and unloading expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Sundry Creditors:
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted discrepancies in the list of sundry creditors provided by the assessee, which led to an addition of Rs.5,08,398/-. The A.O. found inconsistencies between two lists of creditors, one with 27 parties and another with 14, and added the amount under section 41 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition after considering the remand report, noting that the A.O. himself admitted that there were no discrepancies in the amounts for 5 parties common in both lists. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fallacy in the deletion of the addition, as the A.O. did not dispute the total amount of creditors and failed to point out any discrepancies in the explanations provided by the assessee.

2. Deletion of Addition Towards Freight Expenses:
The A.O. added Rs.5,66,23,307/- to the assessee's income for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses as per Section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition after examining the remand report, noting that the A.O. failed to point out any specific instances where TDS was not deducted and did not allege that the freight expenses were bogus. The Tribunal confirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the disallowance as the A.O. could not provide a single case where TDS was required but not deducted.

3. Deletion of Addition Towards Loading and Unloading Expenses:
The A.O. made an addition of Rs.54,57,876/- on account of loading and unloading expenses, citing non-deduction of TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.1,40,563/- and deleted the remaining Rs.53,17,313/-, noting that the A.O. failed to specify which payments required TDS deduction. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the A.O. did not consider the Certificate issued by the DDIT (Exemptions) which exempted certain payments from TDS, and thus found no fallacy in the deletion of the addition.

4. Consideration of TDS on Loading and Unloading Expenses:
The Tribunal noted that the A.O. ignored the Certificate issued by the DDIT (Exemptions) which stated that TDS was not applicable for certain payments made to the Goods Transport Labour Board, Mumbai. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly applied Section 194C(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which requires TDS deduction only if the aggregate payments to a contractor exceed Rs.50,000/- in a financial year. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,40,563/- where TDS was applicable and deleted the remaining Rs.53,17,313/-, which the Tribunal found to be in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order on all issues, including the deletion of additions on account of sundry creditors, freight expenses, and loading and unloading expenses, and upheld the proper consideration of TDS requirements. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 24.11.2022.

← Previous Next →