Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XI Vs M/S. S.K. Tekriwal (Calcutta High Court)
Appeal Number : ITAT No. 183 of 2012 GA No. 2069 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/12/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3703) Calcutta High Court (150)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax ]

ITAT No. 183 of 2012 GA No. 2069 of 2012

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XI

Versus

Online GST Certification Course by TaxGuru & MSME- Click here to Join

M/S. S.K. TEKRIWAL

Date : 3rd December, 2012

ORDER

The Court : We are satisfied that the order under challenge is a just order. The reasoning appearing at paragraph 6 of the judgment and/or order under challenge reads as follows :

“ In the present case before us the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C(2) of the Act being payments made to sub-contractors and it is not a case of non-deduction of tax or no deduction of tax as is the import of section 40a(ia) of the Act. But the revenue’s contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head ‘rent’ and the previous provisions of section 194I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1%  u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against the actual deduction to be made at 10% u/s. 194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax. The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed the payments proportionately by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR also argued that there is no word like failure used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and it referred to only non-deduction of tax and disallowance of such payments. According to him, it does not refer to genuineness of the payment or otherwise but addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) can be made even though payments are genuine but tax is not deducted as required u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. We are of the view that the conditions laid down u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for making addition is that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted. If both the conditions are satisfied then such payment can be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act but where tax is deducted by the assessee, even under bonafide wrong impression, under wrong provisions of TDS, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked. Here in the present case before us, the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C(2) of the Act and not u/s. 194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee has to pay into Government Account. There is nothing in the said section to treat, inter alia, the assessee as defaulter where there is a shortfall in deduction. With regard to the shortfall, it cannot be assumed that there is a default as the deduction is not as required by or under the Act, but the facts is that this expression, ‘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’. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT (A) allowing the claim of assessee and this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.”

We find no substantial question of law is involved in this case and therefore, we refuse to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is also dismissed.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.)

(MRINAL KANTI SINHA, J.)

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25157)
Type : Featured (4133) Judiciary (9979)
Tags : high court judgments (4008) section 40(a)(ia) (170) TDS (899)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *