9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year in question. In the circumstances, the Tribunal went wrong in interfering with the order of the First Appellate Authority directing deletion of the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of ₹ 32,18,677/- for non-payment of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. We hold that the assessee was entitled to deduct the aforesaid sum even though tax had not been deducted at source. TDS u/s 94H - In the absence of any record or material to show that the commission or brokerage paid by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 8,86,790/were to different individuals and each one of such payments were less than the monetary limit of ₹ 20,000/-, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance sheet and the profit and loss account for the assessment year 2007-08. Assessee replied that the accounts were misplaced. 2. Noticing that assessee had submitted audited accounts for different assessment years with the State Bank of India, after collecting the said audited accounts from the Bank, assessing officer proposed to assess the income on the basis of the said accounts filed by the assessee. After finding that the assessee failed to furnish the books of account fearing detection of escapement of income, the assessee was re-assessed on the basis of the audited accounts furnished before the bank. After rejecting the contentions of the assessee, the total income was fixed at ₹ 46,82,920/-. The figure was arrived at by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was correct in restoring the addition of ₹ 32,88,677/- made by the assessing officer on account of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-payment of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 3. Whether the addition of ₹ 8,86,790/- made by the assessing officer as affirmed by the Tribunal on account of disallowing the claim under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-payment of TDS under Section 194H of the Act is justified. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the addition of ₹ 3,26,380/- made by the assessing officer under Section 69C of the Act. 5. We heard Adv.Arun Raj S., the learned counsel for the assessee as well as Adv.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. When the assessee failed to produce the books of account, the officer was justified in assessing the income on the basis of the audited accounts furnished by the assessee himself and produced before the bank authorities. In fact, after consenting to such an assessment, assessee cannot thereafter turn around and object to the reliance of the records obtained by the assessing officer. 9. However, certain payments made by the assessee and claimed deduction as expenses were disallowed by the assessing officer under Section 40(a)(ia) for the reason that tax had not been deducted at source for those payments. The payment of ₹ 32,18,677/- were claimed to have been made by the assessee as freight and coolie charges, and carriage char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year in question. In the circumstances, the Tribunal went wrong in interfering with the order of the First Appellate Authority directing deletion of the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of ₹ 32,18,677/- for non-payment of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. We hold that the assessee was entitled to deduct the aforesaid sum even though tax had not been deducted at source. 11. The claim for deduction of the commission or brokerage paid by the assessee was negated by the assessing officer as well as the Appellate Tribunal. Admittedly, the assessee had paid commission and brokerage to the extent of ₹ 8,86,790/-. The assessee was bound to prove that such payments were made to different persons an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
