Case Law Details

Case Name : Jitendra Mansukhlal Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA NO.2293/MUM/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/03/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (5168) ITAT Mumbai (1632)

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.

Contention of the Revenue– Ld. DR submitted that disallowance has to be made irrespective of the fact that whether payment is made during the year or not and for this purpose Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Pratibhuti Viniyog Ltd. order dated 22/08/2014 in ITA No.1689/Mum/2011.

We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. Recently, Mumbai Tribunal has decided such issue in favour of the assessee by considering the earlier decisions. Judicial Member is one of the party to the said decision The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:

“5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. After careful consideration, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Vivil Exports P. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), we delete the disallowance. For the sake of completeness relevant observation of the Tribunal from the said decision are reproduced below:

  1. Though number of grounds were urged before us in the grounds of appeal annexed to Form No. 36, at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee having made the payment, section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted because it speaks of the amount “payable” and it does not cover the amount already paid. In this regard he relied upon the following decisions of the ITAT Chennai Benches wherein the Bench had taken into consideration the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport, the order of which was suspended by the High Court but at the same time there was a subsequent judgement of the Hon ‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. wherein it was held that section 40(a)(ia) applies only to those amount which remains payable by the end of the previous year. In other words, in respect of payments already made section 40(a) (ia) is not attracted: – i. ACIT vs. M/s. Eskay Designs – ITA No. 1951/Mds/2012 dated 09.12.2013. ii. ITO vs. Theekathir Press – ITA No. 2076/Mds/2012 & CO No. 155/Mds/2013 dated 18.09.2013. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that though there are contrary decisions of the other Hon’ble High Courts, i.e. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and Hon ‘ble Gujarat High Court, in the light of the decision of the Hon ‘ble Allabahad High Court it can be said the there can be two views possible in this matter in which event the one which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192. Accordingly the Chennai Bench held that section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted in respect of the amount already paid by the assessee.
  2. The learned D.R., on the other hand, could not place before us any contrary judgement on this issue. Though the learned D.R. promised to file written submissions within one day, it was not filed. In other words, there is no contrary decision on this issue.
  3. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, without going into the other aspects, which were in fact not argued either by the assessee or by the Revenue, we hold that section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted in respect of payment already made by the end of the previous year. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and if it is in line with the view taken herein the same may be considered accordingly. As regards levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, the same is consequential in nature and need not to be considered independently.
  4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Moreover, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.(supra) has held that for disallowing expenses from business and profession on the ground that TDS has not been deducted, amount should be payable and not which has been paid by end of the year. The said decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court was made subject to Special Leave Petition filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court and their Lordships vide their order dated 02/07/2014 in CC No.8068/2014 have dismissed the SLP.

In view of above discussion, the decision relied upon by Ld. DR would have no application and we have to accept the claim of the assessee to the extent of labour payments are made during the year under consideration and to that extent no disallowance should be made. Further the figure given by the assessee in the aforementioned chart may be verified by the AO and to the extent payments are made during the respective years under consideration no disallowance should be made and only rest of the amount should be disallowed. With these directions we partly allow the appeals filed by the assessee.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (27505)
Type : Judiciary (11709)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (5352) section 40(a)(ia) (201) TDS (1025)

Leave a Reply

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