2022 (10) TMI 533 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - if the tax is deducted in any subsequent year, the expenditure will be deducted in the year in which TDS will be deposited by the assessee - HELD THAT - As admittedly assessee could not establish that tax was not deducted in the relevant previous year and merely claimed that it was deposited on 05.10.2010 i.e. before extended due date of filing return on 15.10.2010. The assessee will be entitled to deduction of expenditure in the subsequent year in which TDS is deposited. Accordingly, no interference is required in the findings of CIT(A). The issue is decided against the assessee. Addition u/s 41(1) - difference between balance as per the assessee and balance as per confirmation by the parties u/s. 41(1) - HELD THAT - The assessment order however, mentions that the difference in confirmation was confronted to the assessee on 28.12.2010 and the authorized representative of the assessee had offered the same taxation. This fact is not otherwise established from any matter. Thus, the issue needs to be restored to the files of Ld. AO to take into consideration the confirmation submitted by the assessee from M/s. Steel Grace India Pvt. Ltd. and tendered along with the letter dated 18.03.2013 and thereupon decided the disputed addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- afresh. Accordingly, ground no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Assessee justifies the entry of loan made on 31.03.2010 by general voucher entry after receiving letter dated 22.03.2010 form HUDA. AO had made the addition primarily on the basis of lack of documentary evidence which were sufficiently produced before CIT(A) and where rightly taken into consideration to delete the addition. The submissions raised before this Bench on behalf of the Revenue have no substance as Ld. CIT(A) having coterminus powers with Ld. AO had duly considered the evidence of assessee. Accordingly, this ground is decided against the Revenue. Addition u/s 41(1) in respect of various sundry creditors - HELD THAT - The letter dated 18.03.2013 has also been placed before this bench and it shows that annexure 2 to 5 being letters of confirmations were submitted before the Ld AO also but he did not take them into consideration. The subsequent payment to these creditors add genuineness to them and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and there is no substance in the ground raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the same is decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source.
2. Addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the difference in balance as per the assessee and balance as per confirmation by parties.
3. Addition of unsecured loan received by the assessee.
4. Addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of various sundry creditors.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia):
The Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure of Rs. 19,63,146 for non-deduction of tax at source. The appellant claimed that the tax was deposited before the extended due date of filing the return. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that if tax is deducted in a subsequent year, the expenditure will be allowed in that year. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling against the assessee.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 41(1) for Difference in Balances:
The AO added Rs. 30,28,996 under Section 41(1) due to a difference in balances with a creditor. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, citing lack of evidence from the assessee. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider relevant evidence submitted by the assessee and directed the issue to be reconsidered by the AO.

Issue 3: Addition of Unsecured Loan Received:
The AO added an unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000 received by the assessee, which was later deleted by the CIT(A) based on documentary evidence provided. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the loan was repaid in the subsequent financial year.

Issue 4: Addition under Section 41(1) for Various Sundry Creditors:
The AO added Rs. 1,52,47,641 under Section 41(1) regarding sundry creditors. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after considering evidence submitted by the assessee. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that relevant information submitted by the assessee was not considered by the AO.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and partially allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to take consequential actions based on the findings related to the second issue. The judgment was pronounced on 29th September 2022.