Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 677 - AT - Income TaxAccrual of Income - Business expenditure - Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident - HELD THAT:- the mere non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 195 per se does not lead to the conclusion that the liability of the person responsible is fixed under sub-section (1) and in every such case, the consequences of failure to deduct or pay the tax including the rigour of section 40(a)( i) shall follow. At best, compliance with sub-section (2) of section 195 is one of the courses available to avoid payment or crediting the account of non-resident etc. without deduction of tax at source. The view taken by the authorities below that taking recourse to sub-section (2) is the only solution to avoid the payment to non-resident without deduction of tax at source, without considering the non-taxability of the amount in the hands of payee, In our considered opinion, does not merit acceptance. As the reimbursement of expenses is not taxable in the hands of payee, there is no point in compelling the assessee to still go ahead with the deduction of tax at source. Ex consequenti the impugned order on this issue is set aside. This ground is allowed. In this view of the matter there remains no doubt whatsoever that if the assessee has failed to claim deduction in the return filed by it, which is otherwise available to it as per law, the doors of justice cannot be closed to the assessee simply for the reason that no revised return was filed making such a claim for deduction. It is simple and plain that the purpose of making assessment is to collect the rightful tax due from the assessee. Filing of revised return by the assessee may be a valid mode of claiming deduction which was omitted to be claimed in the original return. But it is not that if revised return is not filed or the time limit for the filing of the revised return has expired but the assessment is still pending, that the assessee should be prohibited from making such a claim. Technicalities cannot be allowed to work as speed breakers in the course of dispensation of justice. If an amount is legally deductible, nothing can prevent the Tribunal from accepting such a plea. Unamortized cost of temporary structure - We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2002-03 has attained finality by which it was held that the said sum of Rs. 1.04 crores was not allowable as deduction for the reason that 5 per cent of the project was incomplete in that year and the said sum will be allowable in the subsequent years in which the said project is completed. In the impugned order the learned CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that the project was still incomplete and accordingly he directed the AO to allow proportionate deduction by considering the part of the project which was completed. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order on this score. The grounds raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue, therefore, stand dismissed. Claim for excise duty refund - Whether the income could be said to have accrued to the assessee in the year in question on making application with DGFT - It is noted that material on which excise refund had been claimed, was consumed by the assessee in the project. The excise refund was claimed under rule 6(1)(a) of the Duty Drawback Rules under the deemed exports. Albeit the material was used by the assessee in the earlier years, but it made a claim in the instant year for the refund of excise duty vide its application dated 28-3-2003 filed with DGFT for refund of terminal excise duty paid on the construction material utilized in the project. Since the amount in question is incentive for deemed exports, the mandate of the judgment in Punjab Bone Mill’s [1997 (8) TMI 60 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] case wilfully apply to the instant case and as a result of that the amount is chargeable to tax only in the instant year on the assessee filing the application for claim. We, therefore, hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said amount of Rs. 12.83 crores is liable to tax in the instant year. We will however like to clarify that if due to the dispute, it finally turns out that some part of this claim is not granted in entirety, then such part will be deductible in the year in which the claim to that extent is finally rejected. This ground is not allowed. regarding claim for deduction of gratuity - paid to the employees who left the employment - we direct the learned CIT(A) to dispose of such ground raised before him at Sr. No. 4 of Form No. 35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed.
|