2022 (11) TMI 1021 - AT - Income Tax
TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) - wrong section had been mentioned - assessee had paid rent - TDS u/s 194C v/s 194I - HELD THAT:- Wrong mentioning of section does not amount to wrong application of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction is in respect of procedure of assessment. Once an assessment has been validly initiated, typographical errors could take place in respect of mentioning of particular section. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has invoked his powers u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of making the disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS. Admittedly, reference to the relevant section under which TDS should have been done is wrong. This does not excuse the assessee for non-deduction of TDS. This being so, we are of the view that the findings of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance is on wrong footing, hence, same stands reversed and the order of the AO on this issue stands restored.
TDS u/s 194C - Non-deduction of TDS in respect of payments to transporters - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding that there is no contract between the assessee and the transporters and, therefore, no deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Act is called for - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee has not produced PAN details in respect of the contractors to an extent of Rs.28.74 crores. In this regard, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the assessee is granted another opportunity to produce the PAN details before the AO in the light of sub-clause(6) of the provisions of section 194C. In these circumstances, the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue stands reversed and the issues are restored to the file of the AO for granting the assessee adequate opportunity to produce the PAN details as required under sub-clause(6) of Section 194C of the Act in respect of the transport contract.
TDS u/s 194H - disallowance of commission paid on account of non-deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- AO has asked the assessee to produce the proof. The assessee has produced only handmade vouchers which were not verifiable. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee has not given even the name and address to whom, the commission has been paid. This being so, we are of the view that the findings of the ld CIT(A) on both the issues are on right footing and does not call for any interference
Disallowance of donation paid by the assessee - Coming to the issue of donation to four organizations, an amount is the payment to school. We fail to understand that how a school would block the business of the assessee on account of non-payment. If at all, this payment had been made for non-business requirements These are nothing but gratuitous payments. It is not allowable expenditure.
Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.