TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO as deductible expenditures, U/s 198 of the Act tax deducted at source by the assessee as per Income Tax Act is deemed to be income received by the recipient of the said income and as such TDS deducted by the assessee is deemed to have been received by the recipient of the income and as such it cannot be held that the assessee has not paid the amount of tax deductible at source on or before the due date. So it cannot be held that the aforesaid amount of TDS has not been paid by the assessee while following the cash system of accounting - thus we delete the impugned disallowance and direct the Ld. AO to modify the assessment order accordingly. Disallowance out of expenses - AO made adhoc disallowance of 10% for personal use and for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputation filed by the assessee making disallowance, inter alia, of Rs. 49,423/- being outstanding TDS payable; Rs. 2,77,654/- being 10% of expenses on car maintenance, depreciation on car, conveyance, telephone and tour and travel for personal use and Rs. 1,71,996/- being 10% of expenses on repair and maintenance, printing stationery, office expenses, entertainment, diwali expenses, staff expenses on account of unverifiable bills/vouchers. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) maintained the disallowance of Rs. 49,423/- on account of outstanding TDS payable; allowed relief of Rs. 5,933/- being disallowance out of car insurance thereby retaining the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 2,71,721/- out of car maintenance expenses etc. for personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Kumar. The submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. CIT(A). 6.3. Before us the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Delhi Bench C of the Tribunal dated 07.02.2020 in the case of M/s. Gagrat Co. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 3194/Del/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14). The Ld. DR supported the orders of Ld. AO/CIT(A). 6.4. We find that identical issue arose for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gagrat Co. (supra) which was decided in favour of the assessee by recording the following findings:- 6.1 Undisputedly the TDS deducted by the assessee u/s. 194J for the month of March, 2013 has been duly paid on 11th March, 2013 which is well before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. When the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e itself in favour of the assessee in its own case in A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12, so rule of consistency has to be followed by the Revenue. 6.3 Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of Associated Law Advisers, Antriksh Bhawan Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1122/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 on 11.09.2019 decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. So we are of the considered view that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have erred in making disallowance of Rs. 5,33,700/- on account of TDS, hence, ordered to be allowed/deleted. So ground no. 3 is determined in favour of the assessee. 6.5. Respectfully following the decision (supra) of the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal, we delete the impugned disallowance and direct the Ld. AO to modify the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the Ld. AO/CIT(A) were not justified in making the impugned disallowance without pointing out any expenditure which was not supported by bills/vouchers. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO/CIT(A). 7.1. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that adhoc disallowance out of expenses claimed by the assessee without bringing on record any adverse material deserves to be deleted being purely on conjecture and surmises alone. In the case of Thakur Vaidyanath Aiyar Co. (supra) similar disallowances were held to be unjust and improper. We quote para 10 of the decision (supra):- 10. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
