TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be substantiated by supporting evidences. Non-furnishing of such evidences would certainly result into disallowance of the expenditure. Ld. A.R. could not point out that what were the evidences placed before the assessing authority, which was sufficient to infer that the expenditure is duly supported by the evidences. Moreover, Ld. CIT(A) has further reduced the disallowance by taking a reasonable view. This ground of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.59/Ind/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2019 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Hitesh Chimnani, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is against order of the CIT(A)-2, Indore dated 28.11.2017 pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to ₹ 10,12,921/- on account of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) in utter disregard to the binding precedents which were set before him rejected the submissions of the assessee in a whimsical manner. He submitted that coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 45 Taxmann.com 555 (Agra) in ITA No.337/Agra/2013 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He further contended that the Hon'ble Tribunal had relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Rajinder Kumar 362 ITR 241. Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in civil appeal No.3765 of 2007, 293 ITR 226. 4. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue by observing as under: 6. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal Vs. Addl. CIT (supra) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corresponding income inclusion by the recipient.That is the clearly discernable bigger picture, and, unmistakably, a very pragmatic and fair policy approach to the issue howsoever belated the realization of unintended and undue hardships to the taxpayers may have been. It seems to proceed on the basis, and rightly so, that seeking tax deduction at source compliance is not an end in itself, so far as the scheme of this legal provision is concerned, but is only a mean of recovering due taxes on income embedded in the payments made by the assessee. That s how, as we have seen a short while ago, Hon ble Delhi High Court has visualized the scheme of things as evident from Their Lordships reference to augmentation of recoveries in the context of loss of revenue and depriving the Government of the tax due and payable . 8. With the benefit of this guidance from Hon ble Delhi High Court, in view of legislative amendments made from time to time, which throw light on what was actually sought to be achieved by this legal provision, and in the light of the above analysis of the scheme of the law, we are of the considered view that section 40(a)(ia) cannot be seen as int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee in a situation in which income embedded in such expenditure has remained untaxed due to tax withholding lapses by the assessee. It is not, in our considered view, a penalty for tax withholding lapse but it is a sort of compensatory deduction restriction for an income going untaxed due to tax withholding lapse. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee s tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer. Now that the legislature has been compassionate enough to cure these shortcomings of provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, such an amendment in law, in view of the well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal Vs. Addl. CIT direct the A.O. to delete this addition. 9. Ground No.2 is against sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,27,905/- out of ₹ 2,25,811/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the A.O. made addition in lumpsum on the ground that some of the vouchers were not produced. The A.O. has not stated as to what were the vouchers, which were not produced. It is further contended that no specific defect was pointed out by the A.O. He has not pointed out any specific vouchers, which was not produced. 10. Per contra, Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the order of the authorities below. He contended that it was incumbent upon the assessee to produce bills vouchers in support of his claim looking to the smallness of amount. The A.O. was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case to make a lumpsum addition on adhoc basis. 11. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
