Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1230 - ITAT CHANDIGARHAddition u/s 40(a)(ia) - not deducted tax at source on interest payment - Belated filing of non-deduction forms 15G/15H under Rule 29C – Held that:- The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue by the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Karwat Steel Traders v ITO, Mumbai [2014 (1) TMI 927 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held that the default for non-furnishing of the declarations to the CIT as prescribed may result in invoking penalty provisions u/s. 272A(2)(f), for which separate provision/ procedure was prescribed under the Act - once Form 15G/Form 15H was received by the person responsible for deducting tax, there is no liability to deduct tax - Once there is no liability to deduct tax, it cannot be considered that tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B as prescribed u/s. 40(a)(ia) - The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) can only be invoked in a case where tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid - No such default occurred in the present case - the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not invokable - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The authorities below were fully justified in holding that the peak for the assessment year under consideration is required to be considered separately, independent to other documents. There is no dispute that the seized document i.e. Annexure A-3 pertains for a short period of seven day i.e. from 12.2.2006 to 19.2.2006. It is also an admitted fact that the other seized documents relate to the next financial year onwards. We find no material on record to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and reject ground No.4 of the appeal. Addition u/s 69C on account of unexplained expenditure - Held that:- The document in question does not contain the specific date particularly the year. There is no evidence on record to prove that the document in question pertains to assessment year 2008-09 or the search period. It is also relevant to point out here that Assessing officer has not examined any authorized person of Sakshi Jewellers in order to bring the truth. In our opinion, the addition made by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is unwarranted and, accordingly, we delete the addition made u/s 69C of the Act. Addition u/s 69B on account of discrepancy in stock - Held that:- Admittedly, the survey was conducted at branch office at Manimajra, Chandigarh where GP rate of 27.29%, which should have been applied. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, there was no discrepancy in the stocks. In fact the discrepancy in the stock has been worked out by the Assessing officer on estimation. i.e. estimated weight and estimated rate has been taken by the Revenue during the course of survey and the said estimation value of the stock compared with the estimated stock valued as per the books of account by applying estimated GP rate. It is well settled law that no addition can be made where the discrepancies in stock has been worked out at estimation basis without bringing any material on record. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any justification in sustaining the addition of ₹ 25,03,545/- on account of discrepancy in stock. Addition on surrendered income - Double addition - Held that:- The amount in question has already been included in the returned income by including the same in trading account by specifically mentioning as surrendered income and making the addition on the same while making the assessment, it will amount to double addition. Accordingly, we hold that there was no justification in making the addition of ₹ 10.84 lakhs and we delete the same. This ground of appeal is allowed. Addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Held that:- In this case, the Revenue authorities recorded the statement of Shri Sandeep Bansal, partner of the assessee firm u/s 133A of the Act during the course of survey action. In the above decision, the Tribunal has held that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act is not on oath and section does not provide that it can be used for the purpose of Act. Therefore, evidential value of statement u/s 133A is much lower than the evidential value of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. In this case also, the Revenue has no evidence except the shortage of cash, which does not lead to the inference to earning equivalent income. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition.
|