9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1192 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) - expenditure under the head, commission and painting was subject to TDS - HELD THAT - Assessee has deducted the TDS on payment of commission and on painting works. The assessee has maintained the regular books of accounts and produced before the AO. AO did not make out a case that each payment made under various heads i.e. salaries, electrical charges-flats, NMR workers etc. to each person was more than the prescribed limit for deduction of TDS. AO did not identify each payment made to the recipient and the quantum of TDS that is required to be deducted. There is no material to suggest that the payments made under the heads salaries, electrical charges-flats, NMR workers etc. to each individual was more than the limit prescribed under the act for deduction of TDS. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. Interest payment paid to Vasantha Vihar Construction India Pvt. Ltd.(VVCIPL) - AO found that assessee had borrowed the sums for interest and paid the interest on the loans taken by the him - HELD THAT - In the instant case, there is no doubt that the assessee had incurred the interest expenditure and also received the equal amount of interest from VVCIPL, which was offered to tax. Thus, there was no excess expenditure incurred by the assess on account of amounts given to VVCIPL and hence no addition is called for. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Cash deposits made during demonetization period, which was added back to income u/s 69A - HELD THAT - CIT(A) observed that the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and the deposits were made out of the book balances and therefore, following the decision of Karthik Constructions 2018 (3) TMI 39 - ITAT MUMBAI the Ld.CIT(A) held that there is no case for making the addition, accordingly deleted the addition. Deposits made in respect of proprietary concern - HELD THAT - Total cash deposits in respect of Housing Development business for the whole year and the entire cash deposits made in the bank account were sourced from the cash book or books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Therefore, the entire cash deposits stand explained in the books of accounts. DR during the appeal hearing did not place any material to controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that the cash deposits were made out of balances available in books of accounts. Since the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and no defects were noticed in the books of accounts and the cash deposits were sourced from the books of accounts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee is running Petrol and Diesel retail outlet and he is the dealer of HPCL and the Govt. of India has permitted during the demonetization period to accept the specified bank notes in the case of petrol bunks. There is no dispute that the cash deposits made were relatable to sales and duly accounted in the books of accounts and the same were deposited in the bank account. The Ld.DR did not place any material to show that the source of cash deposits were unexplained. As per section 69A if the assessee is found to be the owner of the money, bullion, jewellery and the same was not recorded in the books of accounts for which the source was not explained the same required to be brought to tax u/s 69A. In the case of the assessee the source of deposit was sales and the same was recoded in the books of accounts. Therefore, there is no case for making the addition u/s 69A. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of interest payment to Vasantha Vihar Construction India Pvt. Ltd. 3. Addition of cash deposits during the demonetization period under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Confirmation of addition in the capital account. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) - Background: The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed ?17,67,246/- of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's failure to provide details of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on various expenditures totaling ?58,90,819/-. - CIT(A) Decision: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] accepted the assessee's explanation that TDS was deducted on commission and painting works, and the remaining expenditures did not attract TDS as payments were below the threshold limit. Thus, the addition was deleted. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not present evidence that payments under various heads exceeded the TDS threshold. The appeal by the revenue on this ground was dismissed. Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest Payment to Vasantha Vihar Construction India Pvt. Ltd. - Background: The AO disallowed ?31,06,036/- of interest paid to Vasantha Vihar Construction India Pvt. Ltd. (VVCIPL), arguing that the expenditure was not related to the assessee's business activity. - CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) found that the assessee received an equal amount of interest from VVCIPL, which was offered to tax under 'income from other sources.' Since the interest payments and receipts were equal, no addition was warranted, and the disallowance was deleted. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that there was no excess expenditure by the assessee and thus, no addition was necessary. The appeal by the revenue on this ground was dismissed. Issue 3: Addition of Cash Deposits during Demonetization Period under Section 69A - Background: The AO added ?2,21,24,156/- as unexplained money under Section 69A, arguing that the cash deposits during the demonetization period were not satisfactorily explained. - CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) found that the AO had made factual errors in quantifying the deposits and that the deposits were accounted for in the assessee's regular books of accounts. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the deposits were from legitimate sales activities. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's quantification was incorrect and that the deposits were sourced from the assessee's business activities, duly recorded in the books of accounts. The appeal by the revenue on this ground was dismissed. Issue 4: Confirmation of Addition in the Capital Account - Background: The assessee did not press this ground during the appeal hearing. - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objections, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd September, 2021.
|
