9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 179 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - alleged expenditure on C&F commission and consultancy charges on 30.09.2008 i.e. before the due date of filing of return of income - Held that - We find no reason in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) deleting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as the assessee has duly deposited the tax deducted at source on the alleged expenditure on and before the due date of filing of income u/s 139 of the Act. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition/disallowance of ?89,08,758/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by accepting additional evidence that was not furnished before the Assessing Officer (AO). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition/Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia): The primary issue is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in deleting the addition/disallowance of ?89,08,758/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO disallowed the amount due to the assessee's failure to furnish details and evidence of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted and deposited on commission and consultancy charges. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the assessee had paid the TDS on 30.09.2008, which was before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. This was supported by several judicial pronouncements, including the ITAT Mumbai C Bench in the case of M/s. Pratibha JV Vs. The DCIT, which held that amendments by the Finance Act, 2010, to Section 40(a)(ia) were remedial and had retrospective application. The CIT(A) also cited other relevant cases, such as ACIT, 5(1) Indore vs. Shri Jawaharlal Agrawal, Indore, where similar views were upheld. Furthermore, the CIT(A) noted that the TDS on consultancy charges and C&F commission was deducted in March 2008 and paid by 30.09.2008, aligning with the due date for filing the return of income. The CIT(A) also referenced the jurisdictional ITAT's stance that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be made for short deductions, supported by cases like DCIT (Central), Indore Vs M/s Silver Realities Infrastructure Private Limited, Indore. 2. Violation of Rule 46A: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by accepting additional evidence that was not furnished before the AO. The CIT(A) noted that the TDS details were certified by auditors and were on record, but the AO did not consider them. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had substantially complied with TDS provisions by deducting and paying the tax before the due date for filing the return, thus justifying the deletion of disallowance. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after reviewing the detailed findings of the CIT(A) and the relevant judicial pronouncements, found no reason to disagree with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal upheld that the assessee had duly deposited the TDS on the alleged expenditure before the due date for filing the return, aligning with the remedial provisions of the Finance Act, 2010. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was affirmed. Final Judgment: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2018.
|
