9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n safely be gathered from the Certificate of Chartered Accountant, dated 09.06.2016(supra.) that has been filed by the assessee before us. Now when the aforesaid payee, viz. M/s. Magna Finance Ltd. (supra.) had duly accounted for the interest/finance charges in its return of income and had paid the corresponding taxes on the same, therefore, as per the '2nd proviso' to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the aforementioned amount could not have been brought within the realm of disallowance as contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision. Apart from that, as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, we find that in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT[ 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] had observed, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case and in law, that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer at ₹ 50,000/- out of the expenses claimed towards brick, cement, murum labour expenses. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of construction work had e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 27.03.2011, declaring an income of ₹ 33,52,050/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as neither the other partner of the assessee firm nor the widow of the deceased partner were aware about the income tax proceedings, thus, the same had resulted to the delay in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by Smt. Anamika Rana, Wd/o Late Shri Milind Kumar Rana a/w her 'affidavit' wherein the aforesaid facts were duly deposed by her. Backed by the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the delay involved in filing of the present appeal was for reasons beyond the control of the assessee, therefore, the same in all fairness be condoned. 6. Per contra, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the Ld. AR that same was a certificate of the Chartered Accountant, dated 09.06.2016, wherein he had certified under the 'first proviso' to sub-section (1) of Section 201 of the Act that the payee, viz. M/s. Magna Finance Ltd. had duly accounted for the finance charges/interest received from the assessee firm in its return of income that was duly filed u/s. 139 of the Act and had paid the corresponding tax on the same. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the aforesaid documentary evidence would have a substantial bearing on the adjudication of the issue in hand, therefore, the same may kindly be admitted. 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration, and are of the considered view, that as the aforesaid certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act cannot be enforced against the assessee, i.e, the deductor. Backed by his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as a perusal of the certificate of Chartered Accountant, dated 09.06.2016 (supra) proved to the hilt that the payee, viz. M/s. Magna Finance Ltd. (supra.) had duly accounted for the interest/finance charges in its return of income for the year under consideration and had paid the taxes on the said amount, therefore, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee-in-default within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 201 of the Act, and thus, the said amount could not be disallowed in the hands of the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In order to drive home his aforesaid claim the Ld. AR had drawn our att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra.), had observed, that in case if the payee of the amount in question had paid the taxes on the same, then, the payer i.e. the assessee cannot be held as an assessee-in-default as regards the said amount for the purpose of enforcing the recovery of the corresponding tax liability u/s. 201(1) of the Act. 14. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are unable to subscribe to the disallowance of ₹ 3,95,301/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we herein set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and vacate the disallowance of ₹ 3,95,301/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
