9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner. The issue was invoking of provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has nowhere been discussed by her. She has just rejected the submissions of the assessee, however, has herself not given any finding as to the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee and whether the same is exigible to tax deduction at source or not. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the same in right perspective. Addition u/s 37(1) - claim of expense in respect of interest for late deposit of service-tax - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of documents filed, it is quite clear that the amount was incurred by the assessee on account of interest on delayed payment of service-tax. An expenditure incurred on account of penalties for infringement of law are disallowed u/s 37(1) - amount on account of interest on delayed payment of tax can by no stretch of imagination, be termed as penalty for infringement of any law. In fact, the law itself provides under these provisions to allow the assessee to pay taxes delayed to a limited extent, however, with interest at a prescribed rate. The penalty provisions are provided elsewhere under the law. Therefore, this amount cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rthy CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs. 2,80,000 under s. 40A(3) when the appellant never paid any amount in excess of Rs. 20,000 on a single day to M/s. Singla Trading Co. and when payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 are disallowable under s. 40A(3) and not the exact amount of Rs. 20,000? Further, whether the worthy CIT(A) was justified in confirming this addition on the pretext that the appellant paid Rs. 20,000 every day for 14 consecutive days to M/s. Singla Trading Co. even when this was not the case of the AO and the CIT(A) never raised such new issue during appellate proceedings? (ii) That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, whether the learned AO was justified in making and the worthy CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs. 1,00,000 under s. 40A(3) when the appellant never paid any amount in excess of Rs. 20,000 on a single day to M/s. Ess Techno Consultant (P) Ltd. and when payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 are disallowable under s. 40A(3) and not the exact amount of Rs. 20,000? Further, whether the worthy CIT(A) was justified in confirming this addition on the pretext that the appellant paid Rs. 20,000 every day for 5 consecutive days to the party even when this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of amount of Rs. 20,000 should not come under the ambit of s. 40A(3) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the said issue and on some other pretext has confirmed the addition. It was prayed before us that the amount of Rs. 3,80,000 out of the total cash payment of Rs. 7,26,574 may be deleted. 7. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. We are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue in hand in right perspective. From the list of cash payments made by the assessee as appearing in the order of the AO, we see that there are various payments of amount exactly of Rs. 20,000 totalling Rs. 3,80,000 and the contention of the assessee was that since the language used in s. 40A(3) of the Act is disallowance of the payment in excess of Rs. 20,000, the payment of an amount exactly of Rs. 20,000 does not come under the ambit of s. 40A(3) of the Act. Though the said submission was made before the learned CIT(A), she has not adjudicated the same and tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the cases relied on by it are not supportive as the contribution could not be said to be for social cause or welfare measure. This way, she confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 13. The learned counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing before us prayed that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue in hand in right perspective. Therefore, the issue may be sent back to her to readjudicate. 14. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A). 15. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A), it is seen that the learned CIT(A) has considered the matter in a very casual manner. The issue was invoking of provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has nowhere been discussed by her. She has just rejected the submissions of the assessee, however, has herself not given any finding as to the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee and whether the same is exigible to tax deduction at source or not. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of law are disallowed under s. 37(1) of the Act. The amount on account of interest on delayed payment of tax can by no stretch of imagination, be termed as penalty for infringement of any law. In fact, the law itself provides under these provisions to allow the assessee to pay taxes delayed to a limited extent, however, with interest at a prescribed rate. The penalty provisions are provided elsewhere under the law. Therefore, this amount cannot be disallowed under s. 37(1) of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 23. The ground No. 5 raised by the assessee reads as under: 5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, whether the learned AO and the worthy CIT(A) were justified in not allowing the claim of set off of Rs. 19,15,005 with sustained additions, when said amount of Rs. 19,15,005 was surrendered at the time of search and further disclosed and taxes paid in the return by the appellant towards miscellaneous discrepancies found or to be found during assessment proceedings. 24. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had surrendered an amount of Rs. 19,15,005 during the course of search under the head 'Miscell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces made by the AO can be set off from the surrendered amount of Rs. 19,15,005 under the head 'miscellaneous discrepancies'. We do not find anything wrong in setting off these additions and disallowances under the head 'miscellaneous discrepancies'. From the reading of the letter filed by the assessee before the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the surrender has been made under specific heads of income, for example advances to certain persons and also on account of payment to certain persons. However, surrender of Rs. 19,15,005 is made under the head 'miscellaneous discrepancies'. Nowhere during the investigation after the search or also during the assessment proceedings, no fact of any other undisclosed income has come on record. Therefore, it is quite logical to allow the benefit of this surrendered amount to set off the additions and disallowances made by the assessee (sic--AO). Reliance placed by the assessee on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Akme Projects Ltd. (supra) is not out of place. In that case also, it was pointed out by the Court that apart from declaring the discrepancies pointed out, in order to make its o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
