Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case Kurian Ulahannan Moothukuzhiyil vs. ITO that in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. in ITA 160/2015 & ITA 161/2015 dated 26/08/2015, it was held that there is one thing common to both the provisions to Section 40(a) (ia) and Section 201 (1) is that the as long as the payee has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the Assessee would not be treated as a person in default. Looking to the totality of the facts of the current case, we deem it proper to restore this issue back to the AO to verify whether any order u/s.201 has been passed against the assessee. In case, no order has been passed, the AO would decide this issue in the light of the above judgement.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) was framed, thereby the AO made various additions on account of disallowances of expenditure. The AO made disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,51,059/-, disallowance on account of late payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI into Government Account of Rs.4,73,003/-, disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on account of late deposit of tax to the Government account of Rs.18,53,850/-, disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS of Rs.18,29,036/- and addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs.3,94,000/-.
Contention of the Assessee
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
