TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... auditor in the audit report has qualified that the assessee has not made the payment of TDS. He noted that in the computation of total income the assessee has disallowed the amount of TDS. Rejecting the arguments advanced by the assessee and invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') he made addition of Rs. 14,69,187/- being the difference between Rs. 16,02,430/- less TDS amount of Rs. 1,33,243/-. Further, on account of failure of the assessee to deduct TDS on the payment of security charges to M/s. Shani Security & Allied Services, the Assessing Officer disallowed further amount of Rs. 1,15,275/-. 4. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs. 26,38,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has made cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by an account payee cheque or demand draft or electronic payment. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 2,80,33,688/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the details of the identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences in support of its contentions and the above judicial pronouncements, this appellate authority finds weight in the submissions and documentary evidences provided by the appellant assessee to this appellate authority. Consequently, from the above discussed facts and judicial pronouncements provided by the appellant assessee, this appellate authority is in the view that this issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessee. Hence, this issue of the appellant assessee is hereby allowed." 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,84,462/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act made by the AO. 2. The Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in not appreciated the facts mentioned by the AO where the assessee has not made TDS on the payment of Rs. 15,84,462/-. The fact is also mentioned by the Auditor in his audit report for A.Y. 2013-14. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not discussing the facts of the case in relation to non-deduction of TDS on payments of Rs. 1,15,275/- paid to sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) / NFAC. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has made submissions before the Assessing Officer on various dates which are placed at pages 36 to 57 of the paper book and the dates are as under: 1. Copy of Submission dated 22/01/2015 2. Copy of Submission dated 23/11/2015 3. Copy of Submission dated 10/12/2015 4. Copy of Submission dated 22/01/2016 5. Copy of Submission dated 01/02/2016 6. Copy of Submission dated 04/02/2016 7. Copy of Submission dated 16/02/2016 8. Copy of Submission dated 11/03/2016 13. Similarly, the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings, has made submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on various dates, the details of which are placed at pages 71 to 114 of the paper book and the dates are as under: 1. Copy of Submission dated 30/01/2018 2. Copy of Submission dated 20/06/2018 3. Copy of Submission dated 27/02/2019 4. Copy of Submission dated 15/03/2023 5. Copy of Submission dated 25/06/2024 14. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has called for a remand repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid : Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. 16. A perusal of the above shows that for various types of payments mentioned therein on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, the same cannot be allowed as deduction. However, if the assessee has deducted tax in the subsequent year or has been deducted during the previous year but paid after the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, such amount shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue in its grounds of appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 19. The third issue raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,80,33,688/-. 20. A perusal of the submissions made by the assessee shows that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from the following six parties, out of which the assessee was able to give the confirmations in respect of four parties but could not give the confirmations in respect of two parties namely Jaswantraj Kankariya and Preety Kankariya: Sr. No. Name Amount of Loan taken during the year 1 Khandve Associates 2,52,05,000/- 2 Jacob Anthony 6,14,750/- 3 Jaswantraj Kankariya 1,82,131/- 4 Monterio Robert 10,32,400/- 5 Preety Kankariya 1,99,407/- 6 Santosh Moze 8,00,000/- 2,80,33,688/- 21. It is also an admitted fact that the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to the unsecured laon creditors but no replies were received from the above creditors. The assessee was also not provided with any opportunity to produce those creditors before the Assessing Officer. Although the Ld. CIT(....