Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1654 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessment order passed u/s 143(3) - notice beyond four years - Asstt.Year 2006-07 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that notice under section 148 was issued after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. The assessment year involved in Asstt.Year 2006-07 and notice under section 148 was issued by the AO on 20.3.2012. Four years from the end of relevant assessment year is expired on 31.3.2011. It shows that notice has been issued after four years. Interdiction provided in proviso appended to section 147 puts an embargo on the powers of the AO to issue notice under section 148 after expiry of four years in cases where originally assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act. He can issue such a notice only if it is established that the assessee failed to make a return under section 139 or in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148 or to disclose all material facts fully and truly necessary for its assessment. A perusal of the reasons extracted nowhere reveals that the AO has pointed out any fact which was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly. The facts recorded by him with regard non-payment of employees’ contribution towards ESIC and PF are taken from the audit report. This audit report was already available with him. He has passed assessment order under section 143(3). Thus, the case of the assessee fully falls within the ambit of provisio appended to section 147 and conditions contemplated in the proviso were not fulfilled by the AO. Therefore, reopening is not justified. We quash the reassessment in the Asstt.Year 2006-07. Assessee failed to deposit employees contribution to EPF and ESCI - Asstt.Year 2011-12 - HELD THAT:- There are large number of decisions of different High Courts viz. Delhi, Bombay, Rajasthan, wherein it has been propounded that if employees contribution collected by the assessee and paid before the due date of filing of return, then deduction under section 43B would be allowed. In some of the cases, even SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has considered similar issue , and differed with other High Courts in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . We do not find any merit in these two grounds of appeal in the Asstt.Year 2011-12. They are rejected and disallowance is confirmed. Non deduction of TDS - disallowance of interest expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- Following case of ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the view that if recipients have included the amounts of taxes embedded in the payment made by the assessee in its return, then the assessee cannot be treated in default, and no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is to be made. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO for verification. The ld.AO shall call for details from parties mentioned hereinabove, and verify whether they have accounted these interest receipts in their income tax returns or not. If they are accounted, then no disallowance shall be made. It is also observed that the assessee should also make effort for submitting these details of recipient companies. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
|