TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee read as follows :- "1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 37,21,056/- under sec 40[a][ia] of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and/or submit further or more ground(s) of appeal either before or at any time during the hearing of the appeal." 3. The Assessee is a manufacturer and trader in jute goods. In the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) the AO noticed that the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 37,21,056/- towards brokerage/commission. According to the AO the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the afores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Ltd. Vs CIT in CA No..5512 of 2017 judgment dated 04.05.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable even when the amounts which are claimed as an expenditure on which TDS has not been deducted has already been paid as on the last date of the relevant previous year. In our view following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, we do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. The ld. Counsel however, submitted that the appellant sends jute goods on consignment and the consignees while remitting the sale proceeds and sending account sales in respect of the consignment sale, deducts various charges from such sale proceeds towards variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails of the payees were furnished and are available on record with their PAN and AO details. 9. It was pointed out that ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Ramakrishna Vedanta Math v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 59 (1), Kolkata, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 29 (Kol.) has taken a view that once assessee furnishes lawfully maintained information about recipients, Assessing Officer should first ascertain related facts about payment of taxes directly from recipients before invoking section 201 (1). It was submitted that the above decision ITAT Kolkata in the above mentioned case will also apply for the purposes of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT Kolkata in the case of Vas Electronics Vs. ACIT, ITAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee did not have an opportunity of taking this plea before the revenue authorities. In the interest of justice we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the issue for fresh consideration on two aspects pleaded by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1894/Kol/2014 (Revenue's appeal) 13. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as follows :- "(1) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the carbon credits for an amount of Rs.l,01,58,581/- as capital receipts. (2) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset was generated in the course of business but it was generated due to environmental concerns. There was no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get entitlement for the carbon credits. Therefore, the income from sale of carbon credits was to be considered as capital receipt and not liable to tax under any head of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. " (ii) ITAT (Chennai) in case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax [27 ITR(Trib) 44] held that "the realisation of carbon credit was to be considered as capital receipt." (iii) ITAT (Chennai) in case of Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [27 ITR(Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of the assessee. It is the plea of the revenue in ground no.2 that the claim that carbon credit is not chargeable to tax being capital receipt was made by the Assessee without filing the revised return of income and therefore ought not to have been accepted taking up for consideration by CIT(A) in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 289 ITR 323(SC) wherein it was held that the AO is not competent to entertain any claim which is not made either in the return or by filing a revised return. 19. On this issue we have heard the rival submissions and are of the view that there is no merit in this ground raised by the revenue. The CIT(A) being the First Appellate Authority has the power to enterta....