2016 (11) TMI 1060 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - provisions of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) application - Held that - We find that in the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) has not discussed about the non applicability of the provisions of section 194C and or 194J and has straightway applied the provisions of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Even regarding the genuineness/requirement of the payments for assessee s profession the order of ld.CIT(A) is not a speaking one. In our view the entire matter is required to be looked into afresh by the ld. CIT(A). In view of this the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld.CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal expeditiously. The assessee is also directed to file necessary documentary evidence to prove her case. In view of this the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay.
2. Addition of expenditure - TDS provisions and genuineness of payment.

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay
The appellant's appeal was time-barred by 704 days. The appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal multiple times, leading to delays in the proceedings. The appellant cited non-cooperation from their previous Chartered Accountant as a reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be general and vague. The appellant did not engage a new representative for over two years, which was deemed unjustifiable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Addition of expenditure - TDS provisions and genuineness of payment
In the second appeal, the appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 paid to Super Cassette Industries Limited. The appellant argued that as an individual not covered under section 44AB, they were not liable to deduct TDS under sections 194C or 194J. The appellant contended that the payment was for video production charges related to their business or profession. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not address the non-applicability of TDS provisions and did not provide a detailed analysis of the genuineness of the payment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The appellant was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documentary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed one appeal due to delay in filing and allowed the other appeal for further consideration on the issue of expenditure addition, directing a fresh decision by the CIT(A).