2013 (12) TMI 182 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) assessment u/s 144 - Whether within the meaning of section 144 while making an assessment of taxable income to the best of his judgment the Assessing Officer is lawfully debarred to invoke the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - Held that - when having rejected the book result it was not the case of the Assessing Officer to go back to those very books of account which indicated nondeduction of tax at source on certain expenditures that had ripened to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). Following Sanjay Kumar Pradhan v. Asst. CIT 2011 (12) TMI 422 - ITAT CUTTACK - A change of stand cannot be taken up later when the finding of fact remains the same as were available to the Assessing Officer - Part deduction of tax on certain payments do not lead to the finding that all the expenditures incurred were susceptible to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) for want of deduction of tax at source Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing taxable profit under section 144.
2. Legality of invoking section 40(a)(ia) in assessment under section 144.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing taxable profit under section 144 for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee, engaged in publication and trading in books, filed its return showing total income processed under section 143(1). Upon scrutiny, the Assessing Officer made additions towards excess net profit and under section 40(a)(ia) for various charges. The first appellate authority upheld the addition of excess net profit but deleted the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) based on legal precedents. The Revenue appealed, arguing that estimation of income does not bar disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents cited, including decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and upheld the first appellate authority's decision. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's estimation of income did not warrant further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), as the expenditures in question were allowable based on the income estimation. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the first appellate authority's decision.

Issue 2:
The second issue centered on the legality of invoking section 40(a)(ia) in an assessment under section 144. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer, having rejected the book result under section 145(3) and estimated income under section 144, could still disallow expenditures under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee argued that once income is estimated, further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible, citing legal precedents and decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's estimation of income at a certain percentage did not automatically lead to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision to delete the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), citing relevant legal principles and precedents. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the first appellate authority's decision based on the facts and legal interpretations presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation and application of section 40(a)(ia) in assessing taxable profit under section 144, emphasizing the importance of legal precedents and relevant legal principles in determining the tax treatment of expenditures. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by the parties and upheld the first appellate authority's decision based on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the case.