Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (TDS), Pune V. M/s. Honywell Automation (I) Ltd, Pune

ITA 872/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2728 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 194J

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.872/PUN/2018 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS), Pune .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. M/s. Honeywell Automation (I) Ltd., 56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue by : Shri M. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13-04-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 09-05-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 05-01-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee is not in default within the meaning of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA No.872/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is engaged in the business of process control and management controls on turnkey basis covering obtaining or supplying technological know-how, research and development, consultancy, trading, leasing, procurement sales manufacture of all connected hardware system. It was explained that the assessee makes monthly provisions for expenses on estimation basis in the books of accounts and reverses these provisions in the subsequent month. The provision made at year end in the month of March is subsequently reversed in April in the next financial year. We note that the monthly provisions are made to measure the correct financial performance of the assessee on a month by month basis and it was explained not credited to any party account. It is also noted when the assessee becomes liable to any party, a liability in favour of the party is recognized by crediting the specified party account. There is no dispute by the Revenue that this year end provision made by the assessee on estimated basis and that on the first day of subsequent year, the above estimated provisions are reversed and expenditure is booked on actual basis. We note that in the computation of income at Page No. 20 of the paper book where the details of heads under tax is deductible at source are mentioned which are payments to contractors and sub-contractors u/s. 194C, fees for professional or technical services u/s. 194J and payment of rent u/s. 194I of the Act totaling Rs.7,09,01,641/- was disallowed as inadmissible u/s. 40(a)(i)/40(ia) of the Act which at Page No. 31 of the paper book. The CIT(A) examined the accounts of assessee particularly computation of income as discussed above and held that the assessee made provision against the expenses and no expenditure incurred actually, thus, no liability arise on the assessee to deduct any tax on such amounts. We note 3 ITA No.872/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 that the CIT(A) also held that the assessee disallowed the provision made for impugned expenses including in its income and paid taxes on the same. The ld. AR, Shri Siddhesh Chaugule supported the finding of CIT(A) by referring the accounts at Page Nos. 20 and 31 of the paper book. Further, we note that the CIT(A) placing reliance in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. By the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable to deduct any tax on such amounts. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the sole ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09 th May, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 09 th May, 2022. रदव आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-8, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT, TDS, Pune 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune