M/s. NKC Projects (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2939/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2202 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Reason to believe; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2939/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. NKC PROJECTS (P) LTD., C-3/438A, GROUND FLOOR, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI 110 058. VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 18(2), NEW DELHI APPLICANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY MR. GAUTAM JAIN, ADV. REVENUE BY MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR. DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 IN APPEAL N O. 14/16-17 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)- 6, DELHI (LD. CIT(A)), M/S. NKC PROJECTS (P) LTD., (THE A SSESSEE) PREFERRED THIS IS AN APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTING HIGH WAYS, ROADS AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS FOR CORPORATE SECTOR ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 THEY HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/9/2013 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,51,41,070/-. DUR ING THE COURSE OF DATE OF HEARING 13.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 .11.2019 2 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID A BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,50,59,660/- TILL 31/12/2012, SUCH PAYMENTS WERE I N THE NATURE OF THOSE MENTIONED IN NOTIFICATIONNO. 56/2012 DT. 31/1 2/2012, NOT COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 2 (28 A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AND THEREFORE EXEMPTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 194A (3 (III) (A) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH PAYMENTS, SINCE PAYMENT FOR SUCH SERVICES CAN BE MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS TO SCHEDULED BANKS . 3. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSIO N UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS MADE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND BY ORDER DATED 16/12/2014 IN APPEAL NO. 279/13-14; AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE AS SESSEES APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE ON THE IMPUGNED ISS UE.LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION OF RS. 1,50,59,663/- DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT TILL 31/12/201 2, BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE, THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 1,50,59,663/- WAS TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURC E ON BANK GUARANTEE CHARGES AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT THE SCHEME OF NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENTS UNDER SECTION 197A (1F) OF THE ACT PRESUPPOSES THAT A PAY MENT WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED UNDER SUCH SUBSECTION WAS NOT EXEMPTED FRO M DEDUCTION OF TAX BEFORE THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF SUCH PAYMENT AND THE POWER OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 197A (1F) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THOSE PAYMENTS FROM WHICH TAX IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER CHA PTERXVII OF THE ACT. CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 197A (1F) OF THE ACT OF THE ACT, INTERALIA, PROVIDING TH AT TAX UNDER CHAPTER XVII SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE O F BANK GUARANTEE TO SPECIFIED BANKS MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT THE TAX IS RE QUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER CHAPTER XVII OF THE ACT FROM THE PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, SUCH PAYMENTS MADE T O THE SPECIFIED BANKS W.E.F. 1 ST JANUARY, 2013 SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTIO N IN VIEW OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 197A (1F) OF THE ACT. ON THIS PREMISE HE HELD THAT THE TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DED UCTED FROM THE PAYMENT OF BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION/CHARGES AMOUNT ING TO RS. 1,50,59,663/- MADE TILL 31/12/2012 AND AS THE TAX W AS NOT DEDUCTED, THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,50,59,663/-. 5. FELT AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD. CI T(A), ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL STATING THAT IN VIEW OF THE D ECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN 147 OF THE ACT TTJ 443 (MUM) IN THE CAS E OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD VS. DCIT AND ITA NUMBER 20/4/2019/PN/2012 DATED 10/0/2014 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S ASHOK BUILDCON LTD, THE BANK G UARANTEE COMMISSION PAID TO THE CORPORATION BANK IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPEND ITURE AND ONCE THE 4 ASSESSEE HAD BONA FIDES REASON TO BELIEVE TDS WAS N OT DEDUCTIBLE, SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION FOR THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA INASMUCH AS A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1517/DEL/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11-12 HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWE EN THE BANK ISSUING BANK GUARANTEE AND THE ASSESSEE, TRANSACTION BETWEE N THEM IS NOT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SO AS TO AT TRACT TAX DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. 6. PER CONTRA, IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THA T THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CAREFULLY APPROACHED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A (1F) OF THE ACT AND ALSO NOTIFICATION NO. 56/2012 DATED 31/12/2012 AND, THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH SUCH A FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE.IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS MADE AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL. HOWEVER THE ORDER DATED 2 8/11/2018 IN ITA NO. 1517/DEL/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 CLEAR LY SHOWS THAT AFTER FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE MUMBAI, PUNE AND VISAKH APATNAM BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, A CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BY THE TR IBUNAL THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BANK ISSUING 5 BANK GUARANTEE AND THE ASSESSEE, THE TRANSACTION BE TWEEN THEM IS NOT TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SO AS T O ATTRACT THE TAX DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. 8. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS I NVOLVED IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL, AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, IS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE LD. DR. SINCE THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND HAS SQUARELY BEE N COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR BY THE ORD ERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BANK ISSUING BANK GUARANTEE AND THE ASSESSEE, THE TRANSACTION BE TWEEN THEM IS NOT TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SO AS T O ATTRACT THE TAX DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, AND THE AD DITION MADE IN THIS CASE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE S USTAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,59,663/-. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH NOV, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH NOV, 2019 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI