TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, additional ground raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee has furnished Form-15G belatedly - Held that:- We find that Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt. Anandidevi Gairola Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2013 (9) TMI 1214 - ITAT PUNE) has allowed the claim of assessee where Form-15G were furnished beyond the time specified under the Act. Thus disallowance is directed to be deleted. Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- The assessee is conducting its business from various places. The assessee has a shop near Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and three go-downs at Market Yard. The above said persons are helping the assessee in managing affairs of business efficiently. In so far as reasonability of expenditure is concerned, assessee stated at Bar that all the three ladies are graduate. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, we are of considered view that salary of ₹ 83,200/- p.a. for each of the ladies, appears to be reasonable. AO before making disallowance of 40% has not made any enquiries to find out the salary paid for conducting similar work. The Assessing Officer made ad-hoc dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontribution, travelling allowances, vehicles maintenance and repairs. Rs.15,000/- 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.03.2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the additions. The grounds raised by assessee in appeal are as under: 1. The learned C.I.T.[A] has grossly erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 41,25,640.00 made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the IT. Act, 1961. While doing so the learned CIT[A] has failed to appreciate that the impugned amounts were discounts received which were offered for taxation in the subsequent years on receipt of the intimation from the supplier/upon reconciliation of accounts according to the method of accounting regularly followed by the appellant assessee. The said addition being devoid of merits the same may please be deleted. 2. The disallowance of ₹ 4,89,436.00 confirmed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has offered the discounts to tax in subsequent years, the addition made in the assessment year under appeal has resulted in double taxation of the same amount. The ld. AR contended that in the assessment year under consideration and subsequent assessment years, the income of the assessee is taxable at maximum tax rate, therefore, there is no loss of the revenue. The assessee has no intention of postponement of tax or to avoid payment of taxes. 4.2 The ld. AR made alternate prayer without prejudice to his earlier submissions, by way of additional ground that if the addition of ₹ 41,25,640/- is to be confirmed then the discount offered for taxation in subsequent assessment years may be reduced from taxable income in the respective assessment years. 5. In respect of ground No. 2 of appeal, the ld. AR submitted that Authorities below have erred in making disallowance of ₹ 4,89,436/-. The assessee has paid interest on deposits to four persons aggregating to ₹ 4,89,436/- No tax at source was deducted on the interest payment as Form-15G was received from the said persons. The Assessing Officer made addition of the aforesaid amount merely on the ground that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and have perused the orders of Authorities below. 9.1 In ground No. 1 of appeal the assessee has assailed addition of ₹ 41,25,640/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee contended that this amount represents discount. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rejected the contentions of assessee by observing as under: 4.Before the undersigned, the explanation of the assessee remains the same. It was submitted that since the purchases made by the assessee from various parties have been proved, the credit entries pertaining to corresponding purchases should be accepted. Having considered assessee's explanation, I find that the appellant's contention that discount is accounted for as and when received is not backed by evidence. It cannot be accepted that the appellant does not maintain accounts of customers and in case it maintains, the same cannot be reconciled customer-wise. Plain confirmation filed before the assessing officer without account extracts cannot be accepted on face value. Before me, the authorized representative of the appellant has filed a chart showing therein that discounts have been credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce u/s.194A. It was claimed by the assessee that all the payees to whom the interest was paid have furnished declarations in Form No. 15G/15H to the assessee. The assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that the said forms were filed belatedly by mistakes. The Tribunal also observed that even if the assessee have belatedly filed the declarations with the office of CCIT /CIT beyond the time limit specified in Sec.197A(2) that amount to omission or default for which the penalties prescribed and no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) can be made. 10. In the case of Karwat Steel Traders Vs. ITO (supra) the assessee has paid the interest but did not deduct the tax at source in respect of 17 parties. It was claimed that Form No. 15G/15H were raised. The Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Sec.40 (a)(ia) of the Act made the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 5,30,429 /-.The Tribunal followed a decision in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra) and held that even if the assessee has delayed the filing of the copies of the Form No.15H/15G beyond the time limit specified in Sec.197A(2) that was a distinct omission or default for which penalty is prescribed. 11. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
