TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....290.06 lacs, and against which a net profit disclosed was at Rs.23.20 lacs, which works to 8% of the former (gross receipt). The total of the assets as per the balance-sheet (as at the relevant year-end) was at Rs.113.21 lacs. However, during the course of verification proceedings, commenced with the issue of notice u/s.143(2) on 25.09.2010, the assessee furnished re-audited accounts, and which were found to be at wide, unexplained variation with that submitted earlier. The gross receipts of the business stood reflected at Rs.434.65 lacs, with a net profit of Rs.27.02 lacs, and which work to 6.21%. The total of the assets as per the revised balance-sheet was at Rs.252.59 lacs. The opening capital had been enhanced from Rs.14,11,897/- earlier to Rs.41,12,069/-. The assessee was show caused in respect of the said differences, as also for the declined profit rate, i.e., w.r.t. that disclosed earlier. The assessee explained that the decline was only apparent, and the profit rate in fact exhibits an increase, i.e., from 8.1% disclosed earlier to 8.85% at present, i.e., when reckoned prior to the charge for depreciation, furnishing the following figures: Sr. No. Particulars Original ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, the source of the investment reflected per the assessee's books found false or incorrect, no addition could be validly made. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the addition to the admitted increase in the opening capital, toward which no satisfactory explanation stands furnished by the assessee. 3.2 Again, there is no basis for not accepting the revised trading result. The same could only be unacceptable where the accounts are shown to exhibit some fundamental defect. Rather, as we observe, the only basis toward the same is the profit figure as per the original return, and which has been shown as being not unfavourable when the depreciation charge is also taken into account. The reference to the figures as per the original return cannot be the basis of addition; the same having been in fact denounced by the assessee himself as also considered unreliable by the Revenue. There is also no reference to any basis or other comparable data by the Revenue. Under the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the deletion of the addition made on account of estimation of income on trading account, and the same is accordingly confirmed. 4. Vide its cross objection, the assessee presses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....festly clear that any sum which is payable to specified persons against specified services on which tax is deductible at source during the previous year would, however, stand to be deducted in computing the income of the year only upon the deposit of the same, i.e., the tax deductible at source, by the specified date. The disallowance is not absolute, so that a deposit thereof beyond the specified date would entitle deduction of the principal sum in computing the income of the previous year in which tax is paid. There is no warrant in the language of the provision to limit the word 'payable' with reference to any particular date during the previous year, as, for example, the year-end. The tax deductibility at source could arise at any time during the year on account of a liability arising during the year, and which is so irrespective of whether payment in its respect is made or not. Accordingly, the deduction qua the said liability would be subject to deposit of the tax deductible at source in its respect by the specified date/s. This, in nutshell, is the provision. The provision itself prescribes different time frames for the deposit of tax deductible at source so as to qualify t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a), the word 'paid' stood omitted, with the word 'credited' being pari materia with the word 'payable'; the latter, rather, conveying it clearly to be a liability qua a deductible expense. This, to our mind, explains the rationale of the omission of the word 'paid' in the enactment, which though the courts, as we shall presently see, have held as not a relevant factor, particularly where the provision is unambiguous and clearly worded. Lastly, it is to be borne in mind, as also emphasized by the hon'ble court in Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (TDS) [2010] 325 ITR 610 (Mad), the effect of the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is only that the assessee would stand to be allowed deduction in the year of payment of the corresponding TDS. The fact that the tax was deductible at source in respect of payments made during the year, and which stands not deposited, is admitted. Under the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the assessee's claim. 4.2 Our view, we are conscious, is not in consonance of the decision by the special bench of the tribunal in Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra). However, the view of the special bench has not found acceptance by the hon'ble high....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction, on the ground that the tax required to be deducted at source was either not deducted or, if deducted, not deposited by the due date. The word 'payable' u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not defined, so that it would not include the amounts paid. However, there is nothing to restrict the word 'payable' to the sum/s outstanding as at the year-end, so that the provision would stand to be attracted where the principal sum was payable at any time during the year, also referring for the purpose to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), wherein the apex court had clarified on the accrual of profit. The tribunal, in its view, had committed an error in applying the principle of conscious omission. In fact, the interpretation suggested by it is sans any logic, and would bring in its wake irreconcilable and diverse consequences. The word 'payable' thus has to be read without any restriction, and would extend to any amount payable at any time during the year. As in the case of Crescent Export Syndicate (supra), it held that the tribunal fell in serious error in comparing the language used in the draft bill and that in the final enactment to assign a particul....