2019 (6) TMI 1120 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on Income Tax Act sections 56(2)(viib) & 40(a)(ia)

ACIT, Circle-10 (2), Kolkata Versus M/s. Diach Chemicals And Pigments Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT, Circle-10 (2), Kolkata Versus M/s. Diach Chemicals And Pigments Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made by invoking the provision under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.2. Deletion of addition made by invoking section 40(a)(ia) for the violation of the provision under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition under Section 56(2)(viib):The primary issue pertains to whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act was justified. The AO added Rs. 61,69,200 to the assessee's income, arguing that the consideration for shares should be treated as received in the year of allotment (AY 2013-14), not the year of receipt (AY 2012-13). The assessee contended that the provision under section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable as it came into force in AY 2013-14, while the consideration was received in AY 2012-13.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, stating that the provision should be construed with respect to the year in which the consideration was received, not the year of allotment. The CIT(A) concluded that the share application monies were received in FY 2012-13, thus the provision under section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable.The Revenue appealed, arguing that the transaction is complete only when shares are allotted, and hence, the section should apply to the year of allotment. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the provision is applicable based on the year of receipt of consideration.2. Deletion of Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for Violation of Section 194C:The second issue involves the AO's addition of Rs. 36,97,339 for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C on shipping and clearing expenses. The AO contended that TDS was required on these expenses, while the assessee argued that these were reimbursements to various clearing and forwarding agents, and thus not subject to TDS.The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's argument, noting that the payments were indeed reimbursements and not liable for TDS under section 194C. The CIT(A) found no merit in the AO's action, as the AO did not provide material evidence to counter the assessee's claim.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO failed to substantiate the claim that the expenses were not reimbursements. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly concluded that the payments were reimbursements and thus not subject to TDS.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both grounds. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the non-applicability of section 56(2)(viib) based on the year of receipt of consideration and the deletion of the addition under section 40(a)(ia) for the violation of section 194C, as the expenses were reimbursements not subject to TDS. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 19.06.2019.