9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot call for specific adjudication. 3. The issue involved in ground no 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 1,16,51,016/- made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of boilers and related accessories. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.09.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,96,40,682/-. As noted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, tax at 1% was deducted by the assessee from the payments made to some subcontractors whose permanent account numbers were neither mentioned nor available with the assessee. According to the AO, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion could be invoked only when there is no deduction of tax. This contention of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A) and he proceeded to confirm the disallowance made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) for the following reasons given in his impugned order: "I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submission of the assessee. The judgement of S.K. Tekriwal (supra) is in respect of bonafide mistake when there was some confusion regarding the nature of payments and the appropriate section of TDS applicable in that case. Under the circumstances Hon'ble Kolkata, ITAT held that assessee cannot be faulted for short deduction. In that case TDS was to be deducted u/s 194I whereas appellant had deducted tax u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance in respect of half of the payments. Under the circumstances appellant's prayer for relief in respect of the above mentioned disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) is not acceptable and the additions are confirmed. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 37,23,755/- for non deduction of tax at source, appellant's contention that these payments were below the threshold limit of deducting tax, is not acceptable because appellant has neither provided the details of these payments at assessment stage nor in appeal proceedings. Hence the additions made of Rs. 37,23,755/- are confirmed. This ground is dismissed." 6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to deduct tax at source from the relevant payment. It is thus clear that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source from the payment as required under the Act and the disallowance made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs. 37,23,755/- was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, modify the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restrict the disallowance of Rs. 1,16,51,016/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs. 37,23,755/-. Ground no 2 of the assessee's appeal is thus partly allowed. 7. The issue raised in ground no 3 relates to the disallowance of Rs. 3,26,412/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of donation and subscription. 8. In the profit and loss account filed along with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
