2022 (11) TMI 887 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of depreciation and Insurance expenses - certain assets (vehicles) were purchased on which assessee had to claim depreciation which were not held in the name of the assessee company - AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on such assets on the basis that the assessee company could not submit any proof in respect of the claim that the dominion over the said assets vested with assessee company and the assets under consideration were indeed used for the purpose of the assessee s business - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) has made a specific observation that firstly, the assets (vehicles) have not been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, the assets have been purchased in the names of Shri Rajeev Agarwal, Jugal Kishore Agrawal, Anil Kumar Agarwal Sanjay Agrawal, however, the assessee has not been able to show the relation of these person with assessee company - we are hereby restoring the file to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to verify whether the firstly, assets (vehicles) have been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, whether Shri Rajeev Agarwal, Jugal Kishore Agrawal, Anil Kumar Agarwal Sanjay Agrawal are the Directors of the assessee company. In case, the assessee is able substantiate the above two aspects, Ld. CIT(Appeals) may allow the appeal of the assessee in light of several Rulings highlighted above.Grounds No.1 of the assessee s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Unreconciled creditor - Difference in total credit amount as per the assessee s books of accounts and the amount confirmed by the creditor in response to notice under section 133(6) - HELD THAT - The entire amount has been paid back to the creditor by way of account payee cheque i.e. through appropriate banking channels. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee cannot be held responsible for any discrepancy/mistake committed by the creditor in its accounts. We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel of the assessee that the AO/CIT have not disputed that the entire amount of has been returned back to the creditor after deduction of taxes, through banking channels - the assessee is not liable to explain any accounting discrepancy made by the creditor in its books of accounts. Accordingly, looking into the instant set of facts, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted. Assessee appeal allowed. Non-deduction of TDS made to transporters - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - Assessee submitted that admittedly that no TDS has been deducted on the aforesaid payment. Further, no additional supporting documents have also been furnished to the effect that the payee has reflected the above income in the return of income and paid taxes thereon, and accordingly, the assessee is not an assessee default. In view of the facts, we are of the considered view, that the CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation and insurance expenses.
2. Unreconciled creditor balance.
3. Addition for non-deduction of TDS on payments to transporters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation and Insurance Expenses:
The assessee claimed depreciation on certain vehicles not registered in its name, which the AO disallowed, citing lack of evidence that the vehicles were used for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with proper documentation and proof of dominion over the vehicles. The vehicles were purchased in the names of various individuals whose relationship with the company was not established.

The Tribunal, however, recognized that depreciation can be claimed on assets used for business purposes, even if not registered in the company's name, as long as the company has dominion over them. The Tribunal cited relevant case law and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to verify if the vehicles were acquired with the company's funds and if the individuals in whose names the vehicles were registered were directors of the company. If these conditions are met, the CIT(A) should allow the depreciation claim.

2. Unreconciled Creditor Balance:
The AO noted a discrepancy of Rs. 6,52,296/- between the assessee's books and the creditor M/s Ambika Construction's books. The assessee attributed this to an accounting error by the creditor, who recorded the receipt in the next financial year. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference and provide adequate explanations.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the discrepancy was due to the creditor's accounting error, not the assessee's fault. The Tribunal noted that the entire amount was paid through banking channels and TDS was deducted. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the creditor's mistake.

3. Addition for Non-Deduction of TDS on Payments to Transporters:
The AO disallowed expenses under repairs, maintenance, and advertisement, totaling Rs. 2,05,800/-, and carting expenses of Rs. 1,15,714/- due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee did not provide any explanation or supporting documents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the carting expenses, acknowledging that the assessee admitted to not deducting TDS and failed to provide additional documents to show that the payee had included the income in their return and paid taxes. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1,15,714/- was confirmed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal remanded the issue of depreciation and insurance expenses back to the CIT(A) for verification, deleted the addition related to the unreconciled creditor balance, and upheld the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on carting expenses.