Case Law Details
The tribunal took the view that the addition made was only on the basis of the discrepancy in the TDS Certificate and not on the basis of any finding that some extra charges were received by the assessee, but had not been accounted for. The tribunal also held that when the issuer of the certificate had certified that the mistake had crept in due to the pre-fed computer-programme and certified that no other charges other than what was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee had been paid to the assessee, the addition was not justified.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 15.04.2010
ITA Nos. 438/2010 & 460/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
– versus –
SUDHIR SEKHRI
ORDER
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM Nos.3924/2010 & 3938/2010
The delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned.
These applications stand disposed of.
ITA Nos. 438/2010 & 460/2010
1. These appeals raise identical issues and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. Both the appeals arise out of the order dated 05.12.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2853 and 2854/Del/2007 relating to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
2. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs 36,06,749/- on account of the discrepancy in the books of accounts and the TDS certificate in relation to the assessment year 2003-04. For the year 2004-05, an addition of Rs 23,54,619/- was similarly made. According to the Assessing Officer, the revenue received by the assessee had been shown at a lower figure in the books than as per the TDS certificate available with the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had also confirmed the said additions. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, deleted the said additions accepting the explanation given by the assessee.
3. The revenues were on account of fabrication charges stated to be received by the assessee from Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd. As aforesaid, the addition was made on the basis of the TDS certificate issued by the said Fabritex Exports Pvt Ltd. When the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference in the figures shown in the books as having been received from Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd. and the figure as computed on the basis of the TDS certificate, the assessee enclosed a certificate from the said Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd stating therein that the amount stated in the TDS certificate was computed by the computer incorrectly and the correct amounts were disclosed to the Assessing Officer. A certificate from Fabritex Pvt. Ltd was also filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which showed that the amount paid was only Rs 2.45 crores for the year 2003-04 and not Rs 2.63 crores. It was apparent that the error had happened due to the fact that though the tax was deducted at the rate of 2.20%, yet when the certificates were made, the rate of tax deduction was shown as 2.05%. Since the computer took the rate of deduction as 2.05% and applied the same to the amount of Rs Rs 5,39,443/-, being the tax actually deducted, the amount shown as paid to the assessee by Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd was correspondingly increased. The certificate also indicated that as per the ledger account maintained by Fabritex Exports Pvt. Ltd., the amount payable and paid to the assessee for the fabrication charges was Rs 2.45 crores and not Rs 2.63 crores for the assessment year 2003-04.
4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not accept this explanation given by the assessee. However, in the appeal filed by the assessee, the tribunal reconsidered the factual aspect of the matter and accepted the explanation of the assessee. The tribunal took the view that the addition made was only on the basis of the discrepancy in the TDS Certificate and not on the basis of any finding that some extra charges were received by the assessee, but had not been accounted for. The tribunal also held that when the issuer of the certificate had certified that the mistake had crept in due to the pre- fed computer- programme and certified that no other charges other than what was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee had been paid to the assessee, the addition was not justified.
5. These are pure findings of fact. We find no perversity in the findings recorded by the tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeals are dismissed.
APRIL 15, 2010
