2016 (4) TMI 755 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal partially allowed, remanded disallowance under section 40A(3), dismissed deduction claim under section 80C, upheld disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remanding the disallowance under section 40A(3) for further assessment, dismissing the claim for deduction ... Disallowance made under section 40A(3) - Held that:- The explanation of the assessee vis-à-vis cash payments to drivers of transporters vehicles was that the payments were made in order to look after various expenses on road. However, the claim of the assessee was rejected by both the authorities below as the responsibility of the cash expenditure to be incurred on road was of the transporters, for which the transporters are supposed to handover cash to the drivers of the vehicles. The assessee on the other hand, further claimed that the TDS provisions were complied with wherever applicable. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we find some force in the claim of the assessee. However, in the absence of any details being available before us, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide as per fact and law. The assessee is directed to file the necessary evidence that the cash was given to the drivers for meeting various expenses and also to explain how that cash was reimbursed by the transporters, since the onus of incurring the said expenditure was on transporters. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Claim of deduction under section 80C - Held that:- No deduction is to be allowed under section 80C of the Act on account of tuition fees paid in respect of grand children of the assessee - Decided against assessee Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2009-10, under which as per section 194C of the Act, where cash payment is made in various installments aggregating more than ₹ 50,000/-, then the requirement of the Act is to deduct tax at source. The assessee has failed to deduct tax at source and hence, the said expenditure is disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The second claim of the assessee that the amount has been paid during the year and nothing is payable at the close of the year, also does not stand in view of decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in various cases - Decided against assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Claim of deduction under section 80C of the Act.3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The appellant contested the disallowance of &8377; 10,34,294 under section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted cash payments exceeding &8377; 20,000 made to transporters by the appellant. The appellant explained that cash payments were necessary due to transporters' lack of bank accounts in Nashik, used for driver expenses. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that such expenses were the transporters' responsibility. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim but lacked details, thus remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for further examination and evidence submission.Issue 2: Claim of deduction under section 80C of the Act:The appellant challenged the rejection of a deduction under section 80C for tuition fees paid for grandchildren. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that section 80C does not allow deductions for tuition fees paid on behalf of grandchildren.Issue 3: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:The appellant disputed a disallowance of &8377; 55,050 under section 40(a)(ia) for handling charges paid to Mr. Balu Malode. Despite individual payments being below &8377; 20,000, the total exceeded &8377; 50,000. The appellant's argument that the provisions of section 194C were not applicable was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, citing the failure to deduct tax at source and the Pune Tribunal's decisions regarding payments made during the year.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remanding the disallowance under section 40A(3) for further assessment, dismissing the claim for deduction under section 80C, and upholding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).