9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 940 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Additions u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the additions - payment made to the transporters being freight and transport charges - information to be furnished - to whom - prescribed authority not nominated - HELD THAT - the provisions as provided under subsection (6) and (7) to section 194C of the Act are independent to each other and therefore they cannot be read in conjunction. In other words, non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (7) to section 194C of the Act, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied as there was the compliance on the part of the assessee for the provisions as provided under subsection (6) to section 194C of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee. Additions u/s 68 - Cash Credit - admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - The learned CIT-A called for the remand report from the AO who did not doubt on the genuineness of the details furnished by the assesse but only contended that the document should have not been admitted by the learned CIT-A as there is contravention to the provisions of rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, on perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we note that there is no grievance to the Revenue that the learned CIT-A erred in admitting the additional evidences. Accordingly, we hold that there was no contravention of the provisions of rule 46-A of Income Tax Rules as alleged by the AO in the remand report. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(7) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(7) of the Income Tax Act: The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad, regarding disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Revenue contended that the disallowance should not have been deleted by the CIT (A) as the PAN details of the transporters were not reported in form 26Q as required by section 194C(7) of the Act. However, the CIT (A) held in favor of the Assessee citing compliance with subsection (6) of section 194C by obtaining PAN details of the transporters. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision, emphasizing that the Assessee's compliance with subsection (6) negated the disallowance under subsection (7) of section 194C. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law to support its decision. Issue 2: Addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The Assessing Officer treated certain trading liabilities as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act due to the Assessee's failure to provide necessary details about the creditors. The CIT (A) deleted this addition after considering the Assessee's submissions and evidence of subsequent payments made to the creditors. The Tribunal found that the Assessee had furnished the list of creditors during assessment proceedings and provided additional documents showing payments made later. The AO did not doubt the genuineness of the details provided by the Assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision, noting that there was no contravention of Income Tax Rules and no new evidence was presented by the Revenue to challenge the CIT (A) findings. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in both issues, upholding the decisions of the CIT (A) regarding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Assessee had complied with relevant provisions and provided sufficient evidence to support their positions.
|
