Tribunals
Summary and Review of Case Laws Decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunals
Monday, 29 February 2016 15:07

Section 40A(3) - Unjustified when payments were made to supervisors - Section 263 - Action not warranted when AO has taken a concise decision of not making addition - Amritsar Tribunal

Written by
  • font size decrease font size increase font size
  • Print
  • Email
  • Be the first to comment!
Rate this item
(1 Vote)

Addition u/s 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) - No violation when the cash payments were made to Supervisors to manage business

Section 263 - Action not warranted when the AO has taken a concise decision of not making addition

Facts

1. Assessee is a contractor and his books of accounts are audited u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

3. During the assessment proceedings, after examination of books of accounts and after verification of other details the addition was made to the tune of Rs.1 lac

4. The learned CIT issued notice u/s 263 and passed order u/s 263 and set aside the order of Assessing Officer with the directions to Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh on merits in accordance with law

5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT

Arguments by Assessee

Learned AR submitted that the basis on which proceedings by Commissioner were initiated u/s 263 for the so called violation of provisions of section 40A(3) was not correct as in fact the assessee had not made payments in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) and this angle was already examined by Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order. The learned AR in this respect invited our attention to a copy of questionair issued by Assessing Officer placed at paper book page 12 to 14 and our specific attention was invited to question No.19 placed at paper book page 13. Inviting our attention to reply to this notice, the learned AR took us to paper book page 15 to 17 and our specific attention was invited to reply to question No. 19 placed at paper book page 17. The learned AR further invited our attention to a copy of audit report placed at paper book page 2 to 11 and submitted that auditor in his report has not pointed out any violation in the provisions of section 40A(3) and in this respect our specific attention was invited to paper book page 5. The learned AR, therefore, submitted that the necessary examination was already done by Assessing Officer and therefore, action u/s 263 was not warranted.

Without prejudice the learned AR submitted that reassessment proceedings in this case were initiated on the basis of audit objection and which were later on dropped however, on the same date of dropping the reassessment proceedings proposal for initiation action u/s 263 was initiated on the basis of same audit objection which was not warranted by law as held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V Sohana Woollen Mills,296 ITr 238 and in this respect filed a copy of the case law reported at 296 ITR 238.

Arguments by Revenue

The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer does not talk about the examination of this aspect and therefore, the action u/s 263 was rightly taken by Commissioner. He submitted that department had dropped proceedings u/s 147 to strengthen its case for action u/s 263. 

Adjudication

We find that the examination of violation of provisions of section 40A(3) has been examined by Assessing Officer on three occasions and he had not found any violation of such provisions. The reply filed by the assessee clearly shows that to manage his business at various places the advances were made to various Supervisors engaged working in various locations and these Supervisors used to submit the details of material purchased by them and for making payments to labour and each payment was less than Rs.20,000/- and therefore, in fact, there was no violation of the provisions of section 40A(3).

In the case before us, we find that the Assessing Officer has already applied his mind and has taken a concise decision of not making addition for violation of provisions as there were no violation at all and therefore, the order passed by Assessing Officer was not erroneous and was not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

Cases referred to

1. Roshan Lall Vegitable Product (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ITO 51 SOT 0001 (ITAT Amrtisar)

2. CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 0108 (Bom HC)

3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 0083 (SC)

4. CIT V Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238

Additional Info

Read 2703 times Last modified on Wednesday, 04 May 2016 12:21
Anil B.

A practicing Chartered Accountant Anil B. acquired CA, CS and LL.B degrees with over 12 years of rich and diverse management experience across Banking & Financial Services, Insurance and the Logistics industry spanning various markets and geographies globally.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading! We welcome and appreciate your comments, but at the same time, make sure you are adding something valuable to this article. If you have any serious queries, suggestions or anything related to this article, feel free to share them, we really appreciate that.

If you want to give us any feedback or report any errors, you can email your concerns on taxpundit@taxpundit.org and we'll revert back soon.

Most Popular Case Summary

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
load more hold SHIFT key to load all load all

Recommended Articles

 

Have you done Analysis of any Case? Tell Us About It.

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar