2022 (4) TMI 1068 - AT - Income Tax

Difference in receipt as shown by assessee and 26AS statement - assessee submitted that since it was an ex-parte assessment order, therefore, efforts to reconcile the above could not be achieved - HELD THAT - On due consideration of the above fact, we find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We remit this issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Ld. Assessing Officer would determine whether there is actual difference in the total receipts which has element of income. The assessee is directed to submit the complete details for establishing the nexus. Different expenditures debited by the assessee in the accounts under eight Heads - Since no details were submitted in support of these expenditures, AO made ad hoc disallowance at 25% of the total expenditures - HELD THAT - We are of the view that there is no dispute that whenever a disallowance is to be worked out on the basis of an estimation, then some guesswork will always be involved. In the present case nature of expenses are salary wages, staff welfare expenses, travelling, telephone, etc. There might be some element of personal nature in some of the expenditure. But again that element would not be estimated at 15%, because certain expenditure namely demurrage to Railway, advertisement, salary wages are of such a nature, where no element of personal nature could be worked out. Therefore, after taking into consideration the totality of expenditure, we direct the Assessing Officer to work out a disallowance at 10% of total expenditure, as confirmed. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee failed to detect the TDS on the rent paid - assessee submitted that rent was paid to Railways i.e. almost to the Government Undertakings and this recipient must have recognized those receipts as their income and if the recipient has recognized the receipts as their income, then no disallowance is to be made on the basis of that TDS was not deducted - HELD THAT - We are of the view that ld. Assessing Officer has statutory powers to call for such details from the recipients. It will be very difficult for the assessee to collect the details from the Government Undertakings and then submit it to the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, we do not find force in this contention of ld. CIT(DR). We set aside this issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall exercise his statutory powers to direct the recipients to submit the requisite details, which can be verified by him, i.e. whether the rental receipts in their hands suffered tax or not. After recording a specific finding to this effect, he will re-adjudicate this issue whether any disallowance is called for under section 40(a)(ia) or not. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ex-parte assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of expenses and contract receipt/fees mismatch.
3. Disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS.

Issue 1: Ex-parte Assessment Order
The assessee filed its return of income, but an ex-parte assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The total income was determined at a higher amount than declared by the assessee. The ld. first appellate authority scaled down one of the additions but upheld the rest.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Expenses and Contract Receipt/Fees Mismatch
The Assessing Officer made additions to the income of the assessee due to a mismatch in contract receipts/fees and disallowance of expenses. The first appellate authority scaled down the disallowance of expenses but upheld the addition related to the contract receipt mismatch. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to determine if there is an actual difference in total receipts that affects the income.

Issue 3: Disallowance on Account of Non-Deduction of TDS
A significant disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act due to non-deduction of TDS on rent paid. The assessee argued that as the rent was paid to Government Undertakings, the burden should be on the recipient to recognize the income. The Tribunal set aside this issue for fresh adjudication, directing the Assessing Officer to exercise statutory powers to obtain details from the recipients to determine if the rental receipts suffered tax or not.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, remitting certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the discrepancies in contract receipts, expenses, and TDS deductions to ensure a fair assessment of the income.