9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 204 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds on contract receipt - HELD THAT - We note that the assessee submitted a similar issue was raised during the A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 and CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance made by the AO. This Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 decided the same issue in favour of the assessee. Also assessee's own case by latest in A.Y. 2013-14 wherein held simultaneously take affirmative note of the argument on behalf of the assessee that rigours of section 40(a)(ia) are diluted in the facts of the case since the payee has admittedly filed its return of income disclosing the impugned receipts and income earned by it embedded in the receipt has been duly offered for taxation. In this view of the matter, the assessee Joint Venture cannot be treated as assessee in default in view of the decision of Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Shri Chandrakant J. Mandale 2015 (4) TMI 1140 - ITAT PUNE - Thus, seen from any angle, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
Issues:
Challenge to deletion of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Analysis: The appeal by the Revenue was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15. The main issue raised by the Revenue was the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee, being an Association of Persons (AOP) and a civil contractor in a joint venture, received a contract amount without offering any income. The Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the amount for not deducting TDS. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition based on previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee for earlier assessment years. During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments, with the assessee relying on previous Tribunal decisions in their favor. The Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances of the present issue were similar to those of the assessee's previous cases for different assessment years. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Revenue but ultimately upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the precedent set by previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the strictures of section 40(a)(ia) were diluted in the present case, as the payee had disclosed the income earned and offered it for taxation. This led to the conclusion that the assessee joint venture could not be treated as an assessee in default. The Tribunal further referenced decisions by the Honorable Delhi High Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal to support this conclusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the consistency of findings with previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee. In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the strict application of section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted in this case, as the income had been disclosed and offered for taxation by the payee. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee for different assessment years, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
