TVS Commutation Solutions Ltd, Chennai V. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

ITA 53/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7428 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MATHIVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M VISWANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.53/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S TVS COMMUTATION SOLUTIONS LTD., AMALGAMATED WITH TVS LOGISTICS SERVICES LIMITED, NO.58, ELDAMS ROAD, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : AADCT 0196 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. VISWANATHAN, CA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, ADDL. CIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.07.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -11, CHENNAI, DATED 27.10.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISAL LOWANCE OF 28,11,240/- TOWARDS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 2 I.T.A. NO.53/CHNY/18 3. SHRI M. VISWANATHAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE OF 28,11,240/- TOWARDS VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES. THIS WAS DEBITED TO M/S SENTHAMARAI TRANSPORT DURIN G THE PERIOD APRIL TO DECEMBER, 2011. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIV E, A SUM OF 84 LAKHS WAS ALREADY PAID AS ADVANCE TO M/S SENTHAMARA I TRANSPORT WHICH INCLUDED 28,11,240/- THIS AMOUNT OF 28,11,240/- WAS RAISED BY INVOICE NO.137 DATED 31.01.2012 AND TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED A ND PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON 06.07.2012. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE EXPENSES OF 28,11,240/- WERE MADE DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE OPERATIONAL EXPENSES AS ON 31.03.2012 WERE 88,64,265/-. THE SAME WAS CARRIED FORWARD AS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04. 2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DEDUCTED TDS FOR THE AMOUNT OF 28,11,240/-, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PAYMENT OF 88,64,265/-, . ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THIS WAS REVERSED SUBSEQUENTLY AND NECESSARY TDS HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED ONLY THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE AND NOT THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENS ES. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF 28,11,240/- WAS PAID 3 I.T.A. NO.53/CHNY/18 AS PER THE INVOICE RAISED BY M/S SENTHAMARAI TRANSP ORT ON 31.01.2012. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AD MITTED BY LETTERS DATED 18.03.2016 AND 21.03.2016 THAT TDS WAS ALREAD Y DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. , SINCE THE EXPENDITURE IS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THIS CANN OT BE CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF 28,11,240/- IN THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S SENTHAMARAI TRANSPORT UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES FOR THE PERIOD APRIL TO DECEMBER, 2011. THEREFORE, THIS PE RTAINS TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE CLAIMED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ADMITTEDLY, TDS WAS ALSO EFFECTED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF 28,11,240/- HAS TO BE CLAIMED ONLY DURING THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012- 13 AND NOT 2013-14. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NO T FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 I.T.A. NO.53/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH JULY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 12 TH JULY, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-11, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.