2025 (5) TMI 1958 - AT - Income Tax

TDS disallowance on certification fees paid to non-residents reversed due to computational error under section 40(a)(i)

Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited Versus ITO, Circle-8, Pune

ITAT Pune allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on certification fees paid to non-residents ... TDS u/s 195 - Addition u/s. 40(a)(i) - non-deduction of tax on the payment towards the amounts paid to non-residents for certification fees for products which was necessary to sell the products in USA and Canada market - alleged disallowance was made based on the observations made by the Auditor in the Tax Audit Report which was captured by the online system while processing the return u/s. 143(1)(a) HELD THAT:- AO in the scrutiny proceedings has accepted the contentions of the assessee and has not made any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. While computing the total taxable income ld. AO inadvertently took income computed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act which inter alia included the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. Though the AO was required to deduct the alleged disallowance made by CPC u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act but ld. AO forgot to deduct the same and computed the total income including the alleged disallowance. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the AO has accepted the assessee’s contention and no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act was required to be made. The impugned order is against the return processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and suitable course for the assessee was to file application u/s. 154 of the Act indicating the apparent mistake committed by the AO in completing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act but since the issue has been examined in the scrutiny proceedings and the details in support of the same are placed before us, we are of the considered view that grounds of appeal raised against the alleged disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act deserves to be allowed. Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for alleged non-deduction of tax on payments to non-residents, made by CPC while processing a return under section 143(1)(a), can stand where the Assessing Officer in subsequent scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B has accepted the taxpayer's contention and recorded that no disallowance is required, but inadvertently computed total income by adopting the earlier processed figure that included the CPC disallowance. 2. Whether the appropriate remedy for an apparent error in the assessment order under section 143(3) (omitting to give effect to the AO's own acceptance) is to be pursued by the assessee under section 154, and whether failure to pursue that remedy precludes appellate relief when the mistake is demonstrably recorded in the assessment proceedings and supported by evidence. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of section 40(a)(i) disallowance recorded in CPC-processed intimation when AO in scrutiny accepts taxpayer's contention but thereafter adopts CPC figures inadvertently Legal framework: - Section 143(1)(a) permits processing of returns and issuance of intimation incorporating prima facie adjustments identified by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), including potential disallowances under section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. - Section 143(3) (read with procedural provisions such as r.w.s. 144B) governs scrutiny assessments where the Assessing Officer examines issues more fully and records findings; the AO's final assessment computation determines taxable income. Precedent Treatment: - No judicial precedents were cited in the judgement. The Court proceeded on statutory scheme and the assessment record. Interpretation and reasoning: - The CPC-made disallowance under section 40(a)(i) arose from automated capture of a tax-audit remark during processing under section 143(1)(a); it was a prima facie adjustment subject to further scrutiny. - During scrutiny under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B the AO specifically considered the payments to foreign certifying bodies, recorded the nature of services (certification akin to internationally accredited testing for market access), and accepted the assessee's explanation that such payments were not chargeable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i). - The AO's assessment order explicitly states 'no addition is being made' for the section 40(a)(i) issue. Despite this, when computing total income, the AO inadvertently retained the CPC-computed figure which included the earlier section 40(a)(i) disallowance, thereby producing an inconsistency between the recorded reasoning and the numerical computation. - The Tribunal found that the AO's acceptance on merits in the scrutiny proceedings establishes that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was called for; the inclusion of the CPC disallowance in the final computation was an inadvertent clerical/arithmetical error by the AO rather than a fresh or contrary adjudicatory conclusion. Ratio vs. Obiter: - Ratio: Where an AO in scrutiny proceedings accepts the taxpayer's contention negating a disallowance, but the assessment computation nonetheless adopts an earlier CPC-processed figure including that disallowance due to inadvertence, the disallowance cannot be sustained; the recorded acceptance by the AO prevails and the disallowance must be deleted. - Obiter: Observations on the nature of certification charges (akin to ISO certification) are explanatory and serve the factual basis for acceptance but are not broader pronouncements of law beyond the case facts. Conclusions: - The recorded acceptance by the AO in the scrutiny assessment that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was required is determinative; the inclusion of the CPC disallowance in the AO's numerical computation was an error to be corrected. - The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the impugned disallowance is to be deleted and the AO's computation corrected to give effect to his own finding of no disallowance. Issue 2 - Appropriateness of pursuing rectification under section 154 versus grant of appellate relief when the mistake is demonstrable in the assessment record Legal framework: - Section 154 provides for rectification of mistakes apparent from record in an assessment order; it is the statutory mechanism to correct arithmetical or clerical mistakes or omissions in the assessment. - Appellate jurisdiction allows correction of erroneous findings or computations where the record demonstrates an error and grounds are properly raised on appeal. Precedent Treatment: - The judgment did not cite precedents on interplay between section 154 rectification and appellate relief; the Tribunal applied principles of record-based correction and equity in appellate adjudication. Interpretation and reasoning: - The Departmental Representative submitted that the taxpayer could have sought rectification under section 154 to correct the AO's inadvertent computation. - The Tribunal acknowledged that section 154 would have been an appropriate procedural remedy but observed that since the AO in scrutiny proceedings had examined and accepted the taxpayer's claim, and the documentary evidence supporting acceptance was placed before the Tribunal, it was permissible in the appellate proceedings to allow the grounds and direct deletion of the disallowance rather than insist on a prior rectification application. - The Tribunal emphasized the factual clarity: the mistake was apparent from the assessment record (AO's own acceptance recorded in the order) and correction in appeal would not prejudice the statutory scheme; insisting on a section 154 route would be formalistic where the substantive acceptance was on record and contest pertains only to carrying that acceptance into computation. Ratio vs. Obiter: - Ratio: Where an apparent computational or clerical error in the assessment order is demonstrable from the assessment record (e.g., AO's clear acceptance that no disallowance is required), an appellate forum may correct the error and grant relief even if the assessee has not first invoked section 154, provided the record and supporting evidence establish the mistake and the AO's intention not to disallow. - Obiter: The Tribunal's remark that section 154 is the 'suitable course' is advisory and does not operate as a mandatory precondition to appellate correction in every similar circumstance. Conclusions: - The Tribunal exercised appellate jurisdiction to set aside the impugned CPC-made disallowance and to direct deletion of the disallowance, notwithstanding that rectification under section 154 could have been pursued, because the AO's own scrutiny findings clearly demonstrated the error. - The appeal was allowed and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) deleted, with instruction to give effect to the AO's acceptance recorded in the assessment order. Cross-reference - Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked: the substantive acceptance on the merits in scrutiny (Issue 1) both establishes that no disallowance was due and justifies appellate correction without mandatory prior rectification under section 154 (Issue 2).