INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL HOUSE, Jaipur V. ADD. CIT, Jaipur

ITA 1058/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47932 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JK RANKA
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS

Judgement Text

1 ITA 1058-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ) ITA NO. 1058/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. M/S. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL HOUSE, VS. THE ADDL. C IT, RANGE-5, A-95, JOURNAL HOUSE, JANTA COLONY, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI JK RANKA & SIDDARTH RA NKA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR ORDER DATED : 24/06/2011. PER SHRI R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,866/-, RS. 25,878/-, RS. 1,01,653/- AND RS. 15,550/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, OUT OF CAR MAINTENANCE, DEPRECIATION AND LOCAL CONVEYANCE AND CAR INSURANCE , ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES AND ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE EXPENSES, SALES PROMOTION AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THESE EXPENSES FOR WANT OF PROPER VOUCHERS AND JUSTIFICATION OF THESE EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT (A) RE DUCED THIS DISALLOWANCE TO10%. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN THESE GROUNDS IN PART. WE NOTED THAT IN RESPECT TO TELEPHONE EXPENSES, CAR 2 MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION AND TRAVELING EXPENSES , THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID FBT. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THER EFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IF THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE RESTRICTED TO RS. 1 0,000/-, RS. 12,500/- AND RS. 20,000/- RESPECTIVELY, THAT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. REGARDING THE REMAINING EXPENSES OF RS. 15,550/- OUT OF OFFICE EXPENSES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,500/- IS SUSTAINED THAT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE O RDER ACCORDINGLY. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY HIS ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE REMAINING ISSUE IS IN RESPECT TO RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF TDS TO RS. 2,27,108/- AGAINST TOTAL TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,06,754/-. 6. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TDS CREDIT OF RS. 3,06,754/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E BUT CERTIFICATE ATTACHED ONLY FOR RS. 2,67,675/- AND OUT OF THAT ON THE BASIS OF INCOME O FFERED THE CREDIT OF TDS WAS ALLOWED FOR ONLY RS. 2,27,108/- AND THE REMAINING CREDIT WA S TO BE ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE TAX WAS D EDUCTED BY THE PARTIES ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT. THOUGH IT IS FOR A LONGER PERIOD, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WILL BE UNABLE TO KEEP TRACK OF TDS CERTIFICATE AND ACCORDI NGLY SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR GIVING TDS CREDIT IS NOT PROPER AND, THEREFORE, A R EQUEST WAS MADE TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO GIVE CREDIT OF RS. 2,67,675/-. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ORDER GIVING CREDIT OF TDS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE AO WAS J USTIFIED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT OF RS. 39,079/- FOR WHICH TDS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT FURNISHE D. AS PER PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT, TDS CREDIT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN IN THE YEAR IN WHICH RELATABLE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME AND AO HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER TO GIVE C REDIT FOR PARTIAL TDS AMOUNT IN 3 SUBSEQUENT THREE YEARS AND IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE CREDIT OF SUCH TDS IN SUBSEQ UENT THREE YEARS. 6.1. AGAINST THESE FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THIS GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD. A/R HERE BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WERE ADVANCED BEFORE LD. CIT (A). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND NO IN FIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). TDS CREDIT HAS TO BE GIVEN ONLY ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OFFERED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR WHICH THE AO HAS ALREADY GIVEN. THE AO HAS ALS O MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT TDS BENEFIT WILL BE GIVEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHEN THE REMAINING RECEIPTS WILL BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO QUES TION OF NOT ALLOWING TDS CREDIT AT THE END OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT THE AO WILL NOT ALLOW CREDIT OF TDS, IN OUR VIEW, THIS ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT ANY BASI S. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED IN HIS ORDER THAT CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THIS FACT IN HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS REJECTED. HOWEVER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF TDS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AFTER ASCERTAINING WHETHER SUCH IN COME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 9. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24. 6.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, 4 D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- M/S. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL HOUSE, JAIPUR. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-5, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1058/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.