2023 (6) TMI 265 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals allowed for disallowed expenses as recipients declared income, absolving assessee of TDS failure.

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna allowed the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The disallowances of consultancy fees, ... Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS - effect of recipient's inclusion of receipts in its income on payer's disallowance - application of Hindustan Coca-Cola principle - deductibility of business expenses where TDS not deductedDisallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS - effect of recipient's inclusion of receipts in its income on payer's disallowance - application of Hindustan Coca-Cola principle - Whether expenses disallowed for failure to deduct TDS are to be disallowed when the recipients have included the receipts in their returns - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer disallowed various payments (consultancy, rent, commission, advertisement) on the ground that the assessee failed to deduct TDS. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those disallowances. The assessee produced evidence that the recipients had included the payments in their returns of income (for example, Dr. Sitasaran Singh and M/s. Ravi Lochan Singh HUF) and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Cocacola. Applying that principle, the Tribunal held that where the recipient has included the receipts in its income, the payer's claim for deduction is not to be denied merely because TDS was not deducted. On this basis the disallowances in both assessment years were deleted and the appeals allowed. [Paras 8, 9, 10]Disallowances deleted and appeals allowed on the ground that recipients had included the receipts in their returns, applying the Hindustan Coca-Cola principle.Final Conclusion: Both appeals are allowed and the disallowances made for A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 are deleted, the Tribunal applying the principle that inclusion of receipts by the recipients precludes disallowance for failure to deduct TDS. Issues involved:The judgment addresses the disallowance of consultancy fees, failure to deduct TDS on payments, and disallowance of expenses in Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14.Assessment Year 2012-13:- The assessee contested the disallowance of consultancy fees, payment to Ravi Lochan Singh HUF, and commission payments to Monisha Rao Saraswati, Ankita Saikia, and Surya Narayan Mishra due to non-deduction of TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act.- The assessee argued that recipients had included these payments in their income tax returns and paid taxes accordingly.- Payments to Dr. Sitasaran Singh and M/s. Ravi Lochan Singh HUF were supported by evidence of tax returns and payment of taxes.- The Tribunal referred to the decision in Hindustan Cocacola vs. CIT, stating that if recipients include payments in their income, the payer is not liable for TDS deduction failure.- As the recipients recognized the payments in their income, the disallowances were overturned, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.Assessment Year 2013-14:- The disallowance of payments to nine agents and advertisement expenses was contested by the assessee for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H.- Similar to the previous year, the recipients had shown these payments as income in their tax returns.- The Tribunal relied on the Hindustan Cocacola case to rule that if recipients include payments in their income, TDS deduction failure by the payer does not warrant disallowance.- Considering the nature of expenses and their business purpose, the disallowances were deemed unjustified, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.Conclusion:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna allowed the appeals of the assessee for both Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, overturning the disallowances based on the recipients' inclusion of payments in their income tax returns and the precedent set by the Hindustan Cocacola case.