2021 (8) TMI 217 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - no TDS was deducted on interest payment - as explained by the assessee that the Reliance Capital is a Banking Company and no TDS is deductible - HELD THAT - We note that no evidences filed before the AO as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR showing the Reliance Capital the payee taking into account the interest paid by the assessee has its income and a certificate filed to that effect. CIT(A) also did not discuss about such evidences in the impugned order. Without having such evidences on record the CIT(A) proceeded to hold the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with first proviso to section 201 is applicable - having no evidences on record the applicability of the ratio laid down any decision is not justified. Admittedly, there was no evidences even before this Tribunal showing that resident payee the Reliance Capital furnished return of income taking into the interest as its income by computing in the return of income and no certificate as required under law was filed to that effect. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication as indicated above. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Addition u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Admission of evidence HELD THAT - AR submits that all the details regarding the evidences filed before the CIT(A) and admitted no such evidences for filed before the AO. We note that the fact is not disputed that no evidences were filed before the AO and all the evidences stated to have been concerning the said disallowances were filed before the CIT(A). On examination of the impugned order we note that no opportunity was given by the CIT(A) for AO as required under Rule 46A. The evidences filed before us were admittedly not before the AO, therefore, the CIT(A) did not follow the procedure as laid down in Rule 46A whenever the new evidences which were not before the AO comes to its knowledge. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication and to decide the issue by following the due procedure established under law. Addition u/s. 68 - HELD THAT - In the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to furnish Return of Income, Balance sheet and Bank Statement but no such details relevant to the addition to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction filed before the AO nor before the CIT(A), even before us. Mere giving Names and Addresses of the lenders are not sufficient to prove all the ingredients of section 68 of the Act, in our opinion apart from identity other ingredients like creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction required to be proved in support of claim u/s. 68 - CIT(A) observed that the AO failed to examine the said lenders u/s. 131 of the Act but however in our opinion the CIT(A) also failed to exercise said jurisdiction by remanding the matter to the file of AO - we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its clam. Thus, ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
2. Deletion of addition under section 36(1)(iii) regarding interest paid.
3. Deletion of addition under section 68 related to unsecured loans.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS:
The Revenue challenged the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS on interest payments. The AO added the interest amount to the total income as no TDS was deducted. The CIT(A) deleted the addition citing provisions of section 40(A)(ia) and section 201, emphasizing that if the payee has shown the income in their return and paid taxes, no disallowance is permissible. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting the payee's compliance with these requirements. As a result, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, and the Revenue's ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition under section 36(1)(iii) regarding interest paid:
The Revenue contested the deletion of the addition made under section 36(1)(iii) concerning interest paid on property purchases. The AO disallowed the interest, stating the properties were not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, noting the lack of evidence before the AO and procedural lapses. The Tribunal observed that new evidence presented before the CIT(A) was not available to the AO, violating procedural rules. Consequently, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, and the Revenue's ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition under section 68 related to unsecured loans:
The Revenue raised concerns about the deletion of the addition under section 68 for unsecured loans. The AO added the loan amount to the income due to insufficient details provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, highlighting the lack of inquiry by the AO and the evidence submitted before them. However, the Tribunal noted that the essential requirements of proving creditworthiness and genuineness were not adequately addressed. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper evidence to support the claim under section 68. The Revenue's ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes on all three issues, remanding them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the lack of proper evidence and procedural lapses in the initial decisions.