9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 139 and has taken into account such sum paid by the payer for computing income in such return of income and has paid income tax thereon, then the payer cannot be treated as assessee in default. A fortiori, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made in such circumstances. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the assessee paid a sum to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. There can be question of suspecting that the BPCL did not include such rental income from the assessee in its return of income. It is, therefore, held that the case of the assessee is covered by second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and hence the disallowance made cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of AO i.e. disallowance of ₹ 5,08,727/expenditure incurred on account of LFR and added to the total income of the assessee firm which is bad in the eyes of the law. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of AO i.e. disallowance of ₹ 7,55,030/expenditure incurred on account of Cash Handling Charges and added to the total income of the assessee firm which is bad in the eyes of the law. 4. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad in Law. 5. That both the lower authority have failed to appreciate the intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 & 3. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee in respect of the additions reiterated the submissions as made in the brief synopsis. For the sake of brevity the synopsis of the assessee is reproduced as under: "BRIEF SYNOPSIS Hon'ble Member, The captioned appeal is fixed for hearing for today i.e. 06-10-2021 before your goodself. It is submitted that instant appeal is filed against two additions confirmed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) made by the AO who followed the his predecessor's decision in earlier assessment for AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) because the order of ITAT were passed subsequently. These are agitated in ground no. 2 and 3 of the instant appeal which are as follows: 2. That the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of ₹ 3,11,300/- the factual matrix of this ground is that the assessee paid cash handling expenses at ₹ 3,11,500/- to certain persons, the assessing officer disallowed the same by holding that no evidence of incurring such expenses was furnished. The Learned CIT(A) echoed the disallowance. 6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it can be seen that the assessee paid cash handling charges to certain persons on monthly basis vouchers for such payments have been placed on record Since, such expenses were incurred during the course of business, in my considered opinion, the same should not have been disallowed. I, therefore, order to delete the addition." In pursuance to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer followed the decision of the predecessor for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA no. 2618/Del/2018 for assessment year 2013-14, vide order dated 26.02.2019, decided similar ground nos. 2 & 3 in favour of the assessee by observing as under: "5.1 find that this issue had come up for consideration in the earlier years also, wherein the Tribunal had deleted the said disallowance after holding and observing as under:- "3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The case of the Revenue is that the assessee made a payment of Rent to BPCL and did not deduct tax at source which attracted disallowance und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt such sum paid by the payer for computing income in such return of income and has paid income tax thereon, then the payer cannot be treated as assessee in default. A fortiori, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made in such circumstances. 4. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the assessee paid a sum of ₹ 6,36,920/- to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. There can be question of suspecting that the BPCL did not include such rental income from the assessee in its return of income. It is, therefore, held that the case of the assessee is covered by second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and hence the disallowance made cannot be sustained. I, therefore, order to delete the disallowance. This ground i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
