PFA
| S. 271(1)(c): Disallowance of expenditure for failure to deduct TDS does not attract penalty |
In this case, the penalty has been levied for disallowance of expenditure u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The failure to deduct the TDS on the part of the assessee has resulted in disallowance of expenditure. The assessee had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or expenditure. The assessee has already faced the consequences by way of disallowance of expenditure for non-deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not incurred the expenditure claimed or that the claim of expenditure was bogus or incorrect. The disallowance of expenditure was attracted due to non-deduction of TDS and it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.
Related Judgements
- DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore) (i) It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. There are two different charges i.e. the concealment of particulars of income…
- Nayan Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) When the High Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1) (c). The admission of substantial question of law by the High Court lends credence to the bona fides of…
- CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court) The argument of the revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income" is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. A mere making of the claim,
PFA
| S. 40(a)(ia): Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB) should be followed in view of approval by Allahabad HC and dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court. In any event as two views are possible, view in favour of assessee should be followed. Amounts already paid without TDS cannot be disallowed |
The assessee, having made the payment, section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted because it speaks of the amount "payable" and it does not cover the amount already paid. The ITAT Chennai Benches have taken into consideration the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport 136 ITD 23 (SB), the order of which was suspended by the High Court but at the same time there was a subsequent judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. wherein it was held that section 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amount which remains payable by the end of the previous year. In other words, in respect of payments already made section 40(a) (ia) is not attracted: – i. ACIT vs. M/s. Eskay Designs – ITA No.1951/Mds/2012 dated 09.12.2013. ii. ITO vs. Theekathir Press – ITA No. 2076/Mds/2012 & CO No. 155/Mds/2013 dated 18.09.2013. Though there are contrary decisions of the other Hon'ble High Courts, i.e. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Allabahad High Court it can be said the there can be two views possible in this matter in which event the one which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.(supra) has held that for disallowing expenses from business and profession on the ground that TDS has not been deducted, amount should be payable and not which has been paid by end of the year. The said decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was made subject to Special Leave Petition filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships vide their order dated 02/07/2014 in CC No.8068/2014 have dismissed the SLP. In view of above discussion, the decision relied upon by Ld. DR would have no application and we have to accept the claim of the assessee to the extent of labour payments are made during the year under consideration and to that extent no disallowance should be made.
Related Judgements
- Jignesh P. Shah vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since the assessment had attained finality before the date of search and does not get abated in view of second proviso to section 153A, therefore, without there being any incriminating material found at the time of search, no addition over and above the income which already stood assessed can…
- DCIT vs. Gupta Overseas (ITAT Agra) S. 40(a)(i): Disallowance of payment to Non-residents without TDS violates 'deduction neutrality non-discrimination' clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB)In Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani 137 TTJ 1 (Ahd)(SB) it was held that differentiation simplicitor is enough to…
- The Ramanthali Service Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin) (i) The next question arises for consideration is whether the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as incorporated by Finance Act, 2012 is retrospective in operation or prospective in operation. We are conscious that some of the benches of this Tribunal in the country has taken the view that the…
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment