9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of Durgapur unit, so disallowance of ₹ 54,86,700/- was justified on account of non-deposit of TDS. He also observed that the assessee did not press for disallowance of ₹ 56,96,440/-. In our opinion, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in sustaining the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1,11,83,140/- (Rs.54,86,700/- + ₹ 56,96,440/-). The ld. CIT (A) also directed the AO to verify as to whether TDS of ₹ 4,07,901/- was deposited in the Government Account before the due date of the filing of the return. Disallowance u/s 43B - CIT-A reduced the addition - Held that:- In the present case, it appears that the ld. CIT (A), after proper verification, accepted the claim of the assessee, the ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT (A). We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT (A). - ITA No.1152/Del/2014, ITA No.735/Del/2014 And CO No.264/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2017 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Amit Shukla, JM For The Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO by assuming that it was mere a provision and did not relate to any liability. It was further submitted that the project was under construction at Ranchi Works Unit which was given on sub-contract during the year under construction and the bill of the same was submitted by the contractor on post balance sheet date and that the actual figure of work done up to 31.03.2008 had been credited for liability of the contractor by debiting the cost of project under construction at Ranchi Works Unit thereby showing an increased value of project under construction in the closing stock in the balance sheet. It was further submitted that the said liability as incurred in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and was not in the nature of capital or personal account rather the same was incurred in the normal course of business of the assessee and that the said liability had been added to the stock (business assets) of the assessee, therefore, the disallowance by assuming and ignoring the facts and submissions of the assessee was liable to be deleted. The assessee also furnished the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12/- had to be created against the bills submitted for payment to the sub-contractors on receipt of the payments from the departments against the bills submitted at that time and that all the liabilities against the said provisions had already been cleared after receipt of the payments against the Value of Work Done (VWD) suspense account 2007-08. A reference was made to page no. 14 of the assessee s paper book wherein gross value of VWD/suspense has been mentioned, out of which corporation margin and provision shown in the Financial Year 2006-07 as well as the net provisions has been shown. It was submitted that the gross amount was credited in the profit loss account and the amount of net provision was included in the said overall gross VWD on which tax had been paid but neither the AO nor the ld. CIT (A) appreciated the facts in right perspective. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it appears that the additional evidences furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) were not available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther tax liability of ₹ 7,29,982/- being related to earlier years and outstanding in the year under consideration cannot be disallowed u/s 43B by ignoring the provision of section 43B(a) of the Act. 2.2 On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that amount of ₹ 14,41,770/- being brought forward from earlier years and outstanding in the year under consideration cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act by ignoring the provision of section 43B(a) of the Act which dearly points out that irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him. 12. Vide grounds no.1 1.1, the grievance of the department relates to the reduction in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act from ₹ 20,69,74,740/- to ₹ 1,11,83,140/-. 13. The facts related to this issue in brief are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% on account of sub-contract work expenses as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act and the quantum of sub-contract expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the above, the disallowance made by the AO is reduced from ₹ 20,69,74,740/- to ₹ 1,11,83,140/- subject to correctness of the claim that the TDS were deposited before the due date of return. 16. Now, the department is in appeal. 17. The ld. DR supported the order of the AO and reiterated the observations made in the assessment order. In his rival submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and strongly supported the impugned order. 18. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it appears that ld. CIT (A) after proper verification of the details furnished by the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee could not explain the deposit of TDS of ₹ 54,867/- in respect of Durgapur unit, so disallowance of ₹ 54,86,700/- was justified on account of non-deposit of TDS. He also observed that the assessee did not press for disallowance of ₹ 56,96,440/-. In our opinion, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in sustaining the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1,11,83,140/- (Rs.54,86,700/- + &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
