M/s. Aqua Transliners Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 9(1) , Kolkata

ITA 2616/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8101 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 194A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH VIRTUAL COURT C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2616/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S AQUA TRANSLINERS PVT. LTD., SIDHA PARK, 99A, PARK STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700 016 [ PAN NO.AAGCA 3607 C ] / V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), P-7, CHOWRNGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 13-08-2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-08-2020 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 11.10.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.CIT(A)- KOLKATA-3/10471/16-17 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT THE ASSESSEES B EHEST. IT IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX PARTE. THE CASE IS NOW TAKEN UP FOR HE ARING ON MERITS. 2. WITH THE ABLE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEES SALE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE TO THAT T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING INTEREST PAY MENT OF 56,74,027/- AS WELL AS ITA NO.2616/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 M/S AQUA TRANSLINERS PVT. LTD. VS DCIT, CIR- 9(1), KOL. PAGE 2 AUDIT FEES OF 31,346/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF TDS ALREADY DEDU CTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD AS UNDER:- 3. OBSERVATINS AND DECISION : THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER US 40(A)(IA) OF RS.5705463/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEDUCTABLE ON THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.567402 7/- U/S. 194A AND ON THE AUDIT FEES PAID OF RS.31346/- U/S 194J. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES RE GARDING THE PAYMENT, OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WAS FURNISHE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED THE SAID SUM OF RS.570546 3/- U/S40(A)(IA). BEFORE ME THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPE LLANT CONTENDED THAT THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.5674027/- DISALLOWED PERTAINED TO EARLIER PRE VIOUS YEAR I.E. FOR THE F.Y 2011-12 AND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN RESPEC T TO THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. 2012- 13. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAREFULLY. THE BASIC FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID INTEREST OF RS.5674027/- AND A UDIT FEES OF RS.31436/-.THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APE VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING D ATED 11/10/2018 HAS STATED THE FOLLOWING:- 1) THE TAX AT SOURCE, ON THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.56 74027/-, WAS DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.567403/- ON 31/03/2012. THE DUE DATE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WAS 30/04/2012. IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY THE DUE DATE I.E. 30/04/2012. 2) SIMILARLY IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT THAT TAX OF RS.31/04/2012 WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE AUDIT F EES PAID BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.31436/-. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ABOVE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY THE DUE DATE I.E. 30/04/2012. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE IT CAN BE SEEM THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS DULY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE, AS ADMITTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE I NTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.5674027/- AND ON AUDIT FEES OF RS31436/-. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT TAX WAS DEDUCTED ON 31/03/2012 AND THE DUE DATE FOR DEPOSIT OF THE TAX IN THE GOVERNME NT ACCOUNT WAS 30/04/2012. IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THOUGH THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED IT WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN RESPECT TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. ONE LEGAL ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT SINCE THE SUM ON WHICH 40(A)(IA) DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE PERTAINED TO F.Y 2011-12 NO DISALLOWANCE IN A.Y 2013-14 SHOULD B E MADE UNDER 40(A)(IA). IN THIS REGARD MY OBSERVATION IS THAT ON THE INTEREST PAYMENT AND AUDIT FEES PAYMENT FOR THE F.Y 2011-12 THE APPELLANT HAD DULY DEDUCTED TAX ON 31.03.2012. THER EFORE THERE WAS NO DEFAULT OF NON- DEDUCTION U/S. 40(A)(IA) IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2011- 12. HAVING DEDUCTED THE TAX THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE SAID SUM IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY THE DUE DATE I.E. 30/04/202. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DEPO SIT THIS SUM IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY THE DUE DATE. THEREFORE THE DEFAULT U/S. 40(A)(I A) IS OF NOT DEPOSITING THE TAX AMOUNT IN GOVT. ACCOUNT AND IT TOOK PLACE, AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE DUE DATE, I.E. ON 30/04/2012 WHICH FALLS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2012-13 AND HENCE THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN A.Y 2013-14. AS ADMITTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THE TDS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 40(A)(IA) IS HEREBY CONFIRMED . HOWEVER AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AS AND WHEN THIS PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE A PPELLANT INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IN THE A.Y RELATING TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF PAYMENT. ITA NO.2616/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 M/S AQUA TRANSLINERS PVT. LTD. VS DCIT, CIR- 9(1), KOL. PAGE 3 3. THE ASSESSEES ONLY PLEAD IS THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE PENDING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AND NOT QUA THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. WE FIND NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES INSTANT GRIEVANCE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE AFTER ACTUAL PAYMENT OF INTERE ST AND AUDIT FEE FOLLOWED BY THE TDS DEDUCTION THEREUPON IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YE AR ONLY. ALL THIS SUFFICIENTLY PROVES THAT HE HAD RAISED THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDI TURE CLAIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ONLY. BE THAT AS IT MAY, LEARNED CIT(A) HA S ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES STATUTORY BENEFIT A VAILABLE U/S 40(A)(IA) 1 ST PROVISO OF THE ACT I.E. TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES IMPUGNED CLAI M IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TDS SUM ALREADY DEDUCTED IS CREDITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCO UNT. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE CIT(A)S FOREGOING ACTION CON FIRMING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE THEREFORE. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/08/2020 SD/- SD/- ( ') () ') (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS * - 19/08/2020 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S AQUA TRANSLINERS PVT. LTD., SIDDHA P ARK, 99A PARK STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ. AAYAKAR BHAW AN, KOLKATA-69 3. - . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . - / CIT (A) 5. / ))- , - /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 3 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ -,