Case Law Details
ITO Vs Shri Yagnesh Dayabhai Vyas (ITAT Ahmedabad)
When the TDS has been duly deducted and same has been paid to Government account before due date of filing of return which is apparent from TDS challans as well as Form 16A, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not sustainable. Finding of the Ld. AO that no TDS has been deducted on interest payment to Gruh Finance is wrong and deletion of such disallowance made by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be justified. So far as the disallowance of Rs. 7,96,995/-being payment made to Citicorp Finance India Ltd. is concerned though the assessee has not deducted TDS as per provisions of Section 194A the assessee has submitted copy of Form No. 26A, as envisaged in Section 201(1) of the Act r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) and contended that payee has offered such amount as an income and therefore, non-deduction of TDS would not result into any disallowance in the case of the appellant. It is relevant to mention that the assessee submitted the original Form 26A duly signed by the Chartered Accountant where it has been certified that Citicorp Finance India Ltd. has offered income in their return of income of Rs. 7,98,065/-, receipt from the assessee. A copy of the same has also been filed before us.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of addition of Rs. 35,51,248/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad on 12.08.2019 arising out of the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the DCIT, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12.
2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record including the orders passed by the authorities below.
3. The case of the appellant was reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2017 after recording reasons for reopening of the case. The reassessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was finalized on 27.06.2017 upon making addition of Rs. 35,51,248/-under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us.
4. The brief facts leading to the issue is this the assessee had made interest payment to Citi Finance for Rs. 7,96,995/- and Rs. 27,54,253/- to Gruh Finance, on which no TDS was deducted by the appellant as the case made out by the Revenue.
So far as the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) with respect to Gruh Finance, the appellant had submitted a chart in order to explain that TDS has been deducted and paid during the relevant assessment year which is reflecting at Page 9 of CIT(A) order. Further that the appellant submitted Form 16A which contains quarter-wise TDS deducted by the appellant along with the copy of challans of TDS payment which reconciles with Form 16A submitted by the appellant. Both were on record before the Ld. CIT(A) and even before the Ld. AO.
5. In that view of the matter when the TDS has been duly deducted and same has been paid to Government account before due date of filing of return which is apparent from TDS challans as well as Form 16A, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not sustainable. Finding of the Ld. AO that no TDS has been deducted on interest payment to Gruh Finance is wrong and deletion of such disallowance made by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be justified. So far as the disallowance of Rs. 7,96,995/-being payment made to Citicorp Finance India Ltd. is concerned though the assessee has not deducted TDS as per provisions of Section 194A the assessee has submitted copy of Form No. 26A, as envisaged in Section 201(1) of the Act r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) and contended that payee has offered such amount as an income and therefore, non-deduction of TDS would not result into any disallowance in the case of the appellant. It is relevant to mention that the assessee submitted the original Form 26A duly signed by the Chartered Accountant where it has been certified that Citicorp Finance India Ltd. has offered income in their return of income of Rs. 7,98,065/-, receipt from the assessee. A copy of the same has also been filed before us.
Having regard to this particular fact as narrated above the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) in this regard cannot be made when it has been established that the payee has offered income on interest payment made by the appellant is found to be justified. No infirmity is found in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition so as to warrant interference. Hence, the impugned order is, thus, confirmed. The Revenue’s appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.
