Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of ACIT V/s M/s Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2726/Del /2011 has held that it is trite law that in order to determine whether there are reasons to believe that the income got escaped the assessment, one has to look at the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Contention of the Assessee- Provision of Sec. 40(a)(ia) shall apply only in respect of the amounts payable at the end of the year and shall not apply on the amounts actually paid by the appellant during the year.
The following disallowances were made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: – 1 Disallowance on account of transportation charges paid to M/s. Lalji Mulji – Rs. 1 ,59,386/- 2 Disallowance on account of export freight charges paid – Rs. 6, 17,830/ – 3 Disallowance on account of export freight paid to Indian agents of foreign shipping companies – Rs. 3,70,062/-
In this case ITAT Mumbai distinguished the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (ITA No.122 of 2013) and held that the issue of ‘paid and payable’ was not subject of reference before the Allahabad High Court.
It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not incurred the expenditure claimed or that the claim of expenditure was bogus or incorrect. The disallowance of expenditure was attracted due to non-deduction of TDS and it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The assessee had made payments to non-residents on account of interest, royalties and fees for technical services and the same were subject to withholding under Section 195 of the Act. The assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 90(2) deducted tax on such payments as per the beneficial rates prescribed in the DTAA with respective countries.
Further, it is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessee has indulged in accounting of bogus purchases. When the assessee submitted that he could not have effected the sales without making corresponding purchases, the AO has taken the view that the assessee could have effected purchases in the grey market, which conclusion is, in fact, not supported by any material.
In this case AO has made the addition as some of the suppliers of the assessee were declared Hawala dealer by the Sales tax Department. This may be a good reason for making further investigation but the AO did not make any further investigation and merely completed the assessment on suspicion
AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation. In the instant case also, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of statements given by the parties before the Sales tax department.
Assessee, a US company, entered into agreements with various customers in India for rendering software services – Assessing Officer held that payments received by assessee from sale of software and provision of maintenance and other support services to customers in India
