Case Law Details
Ripley And Company Stevedoring & Handling (P) Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,38,062/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance of the above amount was made by the Computer Processing Unit under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the CPC has misread the Audit Report because in the Audit Report, it has been specifically mentioned that TDS is being deducted wherever such TDS was required to be deducted on payments made by the assessee. This aspect was not examined, i.e. what is the nature of payment, whether TDS is to be deducted or not? The disallowance cannot be made in a mechanical manner. The ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to consider this aspect and did not make an analytical observation, rather simply observed that it is seen from the details mentioned in Form 3CD Report submitted by the assessee, it has not deducted the TDS on the expenses paid. Hence, AO, CPC has correctly added a sum of 30%. The ld. CIT(Appeals) ought to have examined the nature of payment and to verify whether TDS was required to be deducted or not, only thereafter such disallowance could be confirmed.
7. Considering the above facts, we remit this issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for re-verification and re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter decided.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi 30.03.2022 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Assessment Year 2019-20.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
