Appeal allowed for fresh examination of tax issues under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 69A.

The appeal was disposed of with directions for a fresh examination of the issues related to the additions under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. The ground concerning the assessment order being barred by limitation was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 23,72,327/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,05,102/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Assessment order barred by limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 23,72,327/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The primary issue is the disallowance of Rs. 23,72,327/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on machine hire charges. The assessee argued that the entire expenditure had already been paid and should not be disallowed. The assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of M/s Marilyn Shipping & Transporters, which stated that disallowance should only apply to amounts payable at the end of the year.

However, the AO rejected this contention, citing an interim order by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and disallowed the payment under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT-A confirmed the addition, referencing multiple High Court decisions that did not accept the Merilyn Shipping & Transporters' view. The CIT-A emphasized that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate, which stated that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts payable at any time during the year, is binding.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's view, stating that the term "payable" includes amounts paid during the year. However, it acknowledged the assessee's submission that the payees had declared these payments in their income returns. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify this claim and, if found correct, to not disallow the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia). Thus, the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

2. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,05,102/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 2,05,102/- as income from undisclosed sources under Section 69A. The AO found this amount in the books of M/s. S.K Enterprises, which was not reflected in the assessee's balance sheet. The assessee claimed that all payments were received during the year and nothing was outstanding. The CIT-A confirmed the addition, doubting whether this amount was included in the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed the entire gross bill amount, which included the disputed sum, was disclosed and offered for taxation. The CIT-A's doubt about this inclusion led to the confirmation of the addition. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination to verify if the gross bill amount was indeed disclosed and taxed. Thus, this ground was also allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Assessment order barred by limitation:

The third ground, concerning the assessment order being barred by limitation, was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.

Conclusion:

The appeal was disposed of with directions for fresh examination of the issues related to the additions under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 69A, allowing both grounds for statistical purposes. The ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation was dismissed.

---