TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reinafter called "the Tribunal") for both the ay's read as under:- In ITA No.1790/Chny/2018 for the AY 2013-14: The appellant submit the following grounds of appeal in addition to various others which will be put forth at the time of hearing:- 1. The authorities below erred in disallowing Rs. 53,18,606/- being interest paid to Non banking financial institutions (NBF) under section 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS. 2. The appellant submits that these non banking financial institutions are reputed companies who would have discharged their tax obligations by offering the interest received from the appellant and therefore the appellant is not required to deduct TDS on such payments in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola and also in view of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. The authorities below erred in disallowing Rs. 1,06,20,450/- being payments made to other travels u/s.40(a)(ia) for want of TDS. 4. The appellant submits that the other travels are employed whenever the appellant could not honour its commitment to the customers in providing the bus and on such emergency circumstances the other travels are called ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The authorities below erred in disallowing Rs. 1,45,68,958/- being payments made to other travels u/s.40(a)(ia) for want of TDS. 4. The appellant submits that the other travels are employed whenever the appellant could not honour its commitment to the customers in providing the bus and on such emergency circumstances the other travels are called upon to provide the bus to the appellant's customers. The appellant therefore submits that there was no contract as such between the appellant and other travels and therefore there is no requirement to deduct any TDS u/s.194C of the Act. 5. The assessing officer erred in disallowing Rs. 1,80,000/- being audit fees for non deduction of TDS. 6. The appellant submits that the Auditor has provided certificate to show that he has accounted for the audit/professional fee received in his return of income and thus he has discharged his tax obligation by offering the audit fees received from the appellant. The appellant therefore is not required to deduct TDS on the audit fees and the disallowance is liable to be deleted. 7. The authorities below erred in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on vehicle maintenance expenses ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....source under Chapter XVIIB of the 1961 Act : Expenses Amount claimed TDS not deducted u/s. Interest paid to financial Institutions 53,18,606/- 194A Payment to other travels 1,06,20,450/- 194C Audit fee 1,34,677/- 194J Professional fee 67,000/- 194J Vehicle Maintenance Expenses 57,84,247/- 194C Total 2,19,24,980/- 3.3 The AO show-caused assessee as to why the additions be not made for non compliance of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Chapter XVII-B of the 1961 Act . As per AO, the assessee did not filed proper reply, which led the AO to invoke provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act and made additions to the tune of Rs. 2,19,24,980/- by disallowing expenses for non-deduction of income-tax at source under relevant provisions of Chapter-XVIIB of the 1961 Act, vide assessment order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO vide assessment order dated 09.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) who was pleased to grant relief w.r.t.disallowance made towards interest payments to the tune of Rs. 23,94,552/- made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that issue may accordingly be restored back for readjudication. 5.2 The Ld.DR objected to the grant of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that the assessee has not filed evidences/certificates as are required to evidence that these payees have included aforesaid payments made by the assessee to them under various heads in their return of income filed with Revenue and paid due taxes to the credit of Central Government. 5.3 So far as the payment made for vehicle maintenance is concerned, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that these payments were made under an oral contract and there is no written contract signed by the assessee with said parties/payees and Section 194C of the 1961 Act has no applicability to oral contracts. On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that these are in any case contracts and provisions of Section 194C gets attracted and the assessee is liable to deduct income-tax at source under the provisions of Section 194C of the 1961 Act. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that the assessee is engaged in business of travel agency running and plying buses to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Division Bench who pronounced the aforesaid order. The decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. J. Rama v. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 608(Kar. HC) is relevant. Now, coming back , we are of the considered view that the issue of disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with provisions of Chapter XVII-B for both the ay's : 2013-14 and 2014-15 needs to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication . The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has made statement before us that if given one more opportunity, the assessee will produce all the necessary and relevant evidences/ certificates as required under the statute/rules to substantiate that the payees have duly included the aforesaid amounts as income in their return of income filed with Revenue and paid due taxes to the credit of Central Government. Now, the onus is entirely on the assessee to produce all relevant evidences/ certificates as are required under the law before learned CIT(A) in set aside proceedings for both the ay's to justify that no additions are warranted in the case of the assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 as these payees have included aforesaid amounts paid by ....