2017 (9) TMI 1156 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeal Update: CIT (A) allows partial appeal, deletes income from M/s Sail, upholds deletion of additions, remands expense verification.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) allowed the appeal in part for statistical purposes. The addition of income received from M/s Sail was ... Credit of TDS - CIT (A) found that though initially the assessee claimed the credit of TDS as per 26AS statement, later on the assessee brought to the notice of the AO that such claim was by mistake and since they did not provide any service to SAIL nor did they receive ₹ 5,50,000/- they reconciled their books of accounts - Held that:- This is a verifiable fact at the end of the AO and set aside this ground to the file of the AO with a direction to verify whether any service was rendered and any amount was received. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - tds liability u/s 195 - whether transaction took place outside India and the amount was paid on behalf of the assessee to the said company was merely reimbursed by the assessee? - Held that:- There is no denial of fact from the Revenue as to the nature of the payments by the assessee to M/s Commune Market & Events Pvt. Ltd. and M/s FIH. M/s FIH made the payment of ₹ 8,09,545/- directly to M/s Commune Market & Events Pvt. Ltd. outside India and for that matter M/s FIH incurred so much of expenditure which the assessee reimbursed to them. In the circumstances, we find it difficult to agree with the Ld. DR that these payments partake the nature of income in the hands of M/s FIH and consequently, we hold that the assessee was not obliged to deduct TDS on the same. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) to delete the addition of these two amounts u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, the ground no. 2 is dismissed. Addition on account of bogus creditors - three parties did not respond to notice u/s 133(6) - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that:- The addition was purely because three parties did not respond to notice u/s 133(6)of the Act and the payments were partly in the previous year and partly in the succeeding year. Having considered the copy of the bank accounts and the cheque numbers with amounts and dates placed on record by the assessee, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted this addition. When there is no denial of the factual position, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) do not seem to be pervasive requiring any interference. The observations of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on solid facts. - Decided against revenue Addition on prior period expenses - CIT-A allowed claim - Held that:- CIT (A) found merit in the argument of the assessee that an amount of ₹ 63,635/- was paid on account of technical table expenses, and since the AOP was formed only during the assessment year 2010-11, there were no prior period expenses since all the expenses are subsequent to 01.04.2009. We confirm this finding of Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed the ground no. 4. Ad-hoc disallowance being 10% of the total expenses claimed in absence of production of bills & vouchers - Held that:- CIT (A) recorded that the assessee had placed on record the copies of bills of all the four parties along with copies of their ledger accounts. Ld. DR seriously disputed this stating that the Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity on this aspect to verify the veracity and genuineness of the material produced by the assessee. We are in agreement with the submission of the Ld. DR and find that the material produced by the assessee has to be verified by the AO. We, therefore, set aside this ground also to the file of the AO. Issues Involved:1. Addition of income received from M/s Sail2. Deletion of additions made under section 40(a)(ia)3. Deletion of addition made on account of bogus creditors4. Deletion of addition made on account of prior period expenses5. Ad-hoc disallowance of expenses for lack of bills and vouchers6. Admission of additional evidence in violation of rulesAnalysis:1. Addition of Income Received from M/s Sail:The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of &8377; 5,50,000/- as income received from M/s Sail, which was not declared by the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) deleted this addition based on the principle that income is recognized only when services are actually rendered and payment received. The CIT (A) found that no services were rendered nor payment received, hence the addition was not sustainable. The issue was remanded back to the AO for verification.2. Deletion of Additions under Section 40(a)(ia):The AO added amounts under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, the CIT (A) deleted these additions after finding that the payments were made by another entity on behalf of the assessee and were merely reimbursed, thus not falling under the purview of section 40(a)(ia). The CIT (A) relied on precedents to support this decision, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion.3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Creditors:The addition made by the AO on account of bogus creditors was deleted by the CIT (A) after considering the facts and bank records provided by the assessee. The CIT (A) found no reason to interfere with this decision, as it was based on solid facts.4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Prior Period Expenses:The CIT (A) dismissed the addition made on account of prior period expenses, as the assessee demonstrated that the expenses were incurred after the formation of the AOP, and there were no prior period expenses. This finding was upheld by the Tribunal.5. Ad-hoc Disallowance of Expenses for Lack of Bills and Vouchers:The AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses for lack of bills and vouchers. The CIT (A noted that the assessee provided copies of bills and ledger accounts, but the material needed verification. The Tribunal agreed that the material should be verified by the AO and remanded the issue back for further examination.6. Admission of Additional Evidence in Violation of Rules:The Revenue challenged the admission of additional evidence by the CIT (A) in violation of rules. However, the Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the CIT (A)'s decision, as it was based on factual positions and solid facts.In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part for statistical purposes, with various additions and deletions being upheld or remanded for further verification.