2024 (11) TMI 1155 - AT - Income Tax

Liability of interest u/s 201(1A) - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee has suo moto disallowed 30% of the interest expenditure - HELD THAT - The undisputed fact is that the assessee has suo moto disallowed the interest expenditure on which no tax was deducted at source. In our considered opinion, once an amount is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, it should not be subject to TDS provisions again so as to make an assessee liable to interest u/s 201(1A). The recipients of the interest have already included the said amounts in their returns of income and paid taxes thereon and the assessee has furnished evidence for the same including an Accountant Certificate as directed in the relevant provisions of the Act and since the tax has already been paid by the recipients, no further tax recovery is necessary. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein held what is common to both the provisos to Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 201(1) of the Act is that as long as the payee/resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the Assessee would not be treated as a person in default. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax.
2. Levying of interest under the first proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Act on disallowed expenditure.
3. Whether interest under Section 201(1A) is applicable when voluntary disallowance is made under Section 40(a)(ia).
4. Treatment of expenditure disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and subsequent TDS provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal concerns the disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax. The assessee voluntarily disallowed 30% of the interest expenditure paid on a loan where tax was not deducted at source. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire interest expenditure and levied interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance but directed the AO to charge interest as per the first proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Act.

Issue 2: The key contention was whether interest under the first proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Act is applicable when voluntary disallowance is made under Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee argued that since it had already disallowed a portion of the expenditure, further addition was unwarranted. The Revenue, however, supported the findings of the AO.

Issue 3: The Tribunal considered the applicability of interest under Section 201(1A) when voluntary disallowance is made under Section 40(a)(ia). It relied on a previous decision where it was held that once an amount is disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax, it should not be subject to TDS provisions again. The Tribunal opined that the deductor is exonerated from TDS provisions on disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia).

Issue 4: The Tribunal further emphasized that the recipients of the interest had already paid taxes on the amounts received, as evidenced by their tax returns and accountant certificates. Citing a decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal held that as long as the payee has disclosed the income and paid taxes, the deductor should not be treated as a defaulter. Therefore, it concluded that no further tax recovery was necessary in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the impugned addition based on the facts of the case and the legal principles discussed in the judgment.