9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 746 - AT - Income TaxAddition U/s 69 - unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee has explained the process of supply the goods through contract to VVNL. The assessee first awarded the contract by the VVNL. Thereafter he supplied the goods which is tested in the laboratory by the engineers, thereafter approved by it. In the present case, the assessee procured the material to be supplied to the electricity company from M/s Galaxy Concab (I) Pvt. Ltd.. The material was inspected on 11/4/2008, which was tested in the laboratory on 17/4/2008. Once the material was passed by the competent authority, the assessee was communicated, accordingly he raised the bill on electricity company for supply of cable. The supplier directly sent the cable to the electricity company through challans with all bills at vehicle, actual quantity. After the entire quantity was supplied, thereafter, issued a delivery challan, which was certified by the stock keeper of the electricity company. The Ld. DR has not controverted the finding given by the ld CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Addition U/s 40(a)(ia) - payment of interest to Non-banking Finance Company (In short NBFC) without deducting TDS - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - On issue of amount already paid during the year or amount shown payable as on 31st March of every year, the various courts have different views i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the assessee. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) has held that when there are to views on an issue, the view in favour of the assessee has to be preferred. Therefore, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Further the recipient are NBFC, therefore, not possible to not be assessed to tax, these payments were related for A.Y. 2009-10 and return for A.Y. 2009-10 already might have been filed by these NBFC by including these interests receipts as their income. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).- Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 69 for undisclosed stock. 2. Deletion of addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on interest paid to non-banking financial companies. 3. Deletion of addition made for unexplained investment due to discrepancy in purchase and sale quantities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 69 for Undisclosed Stock: The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 51,66,768/- under Section 69, claiming the assessee had no stock when a sale was made on 17/04/2008. The AO noted the assessee, a contractor for Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), showed no opening stock but recorded a sale of 101.813 KM of cable on 17/04/2008. Purchases were made only on 18/04/2008 and 19/04/2008. The AO concluded this sale was from undisclosed stock. The CIT(A) found that the assessee followed a standard procedure where the supplier directly delivered goods to the site, and the sale bill was raised once the material was approved by the electrical company. The CIT(A) observed no evidence from the AO to substantiate the claim of undisclosed stock and directed deletion of the addition. The tribunal upheld this decision, noting the AO did not dispute the challan and bills provided by the assessee. 2. Deletion of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of Tax at Source: The AO added Rs. 9,21,058/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to non-banking financial companies (NBFCs). The CIT(A) ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts payable at the end of the year, not to amounts already paid. This interpretation was supported by the ITAT Vishakhapatnam Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping & Transport Vs. ACIT and decisions by the ITAT Jaipur Bench. The CIT(A) noted that no amount was payable at the year-end as monthly installments were paid in advance. The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the NBFCs likely included the interest in their income and paid the tax, thus not warranting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). 3. Deletion of Addition for Unexplained Investment: The AO added Rs. 15,07,235/- for unexplained investment, observing a discrepancy between the total sales of 610.715 KM and purchases of 562.810 KM, indicating a shortfall of 47.905 KM. The CIT(A) found that the discrepancy was due to deductions made by JVVNL for lesser supply and reuse of old cables, supported by payment advice showing deductions under "RMD penalty/duty". The CIT(A) noted that the total deductions were more than the addition made by the AO. Since the entire sale proceeds were declared, the CIT(A) directed deletion of the addition. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the AO did not provide evidence to counter the assessee's explanation. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence and proper procedure in tax assessments, supporting the assessee's explanations and documentation.
|
