Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on Payment of professional charges if such charges are not claimed in profit and loss account and same being capitalized

Loading

Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on Payment of professional charges if such charges are not claimed in profit and loss account and same being capitalized

Short Overview Where assessee did not claim professional charges in its profit and loss account and capitalized the same under work -in- progress, i.e., Building under Construction in fixed assets schedule; the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of tax at source on such professional charges was liable to be deleted in view of the fact that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted only if expenses are claimed in profit and loss account, and not when the same are capitalized.
AO made addition under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of tax at source on professional charges paid by assessee-company.
It is held that Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted only if expenses are claimed in profit and loss account and not when the same are capitalized. In instant case, since assessee did not claim professional charges in its profit and loss account and capitalized the same under work -in- progress, i.e., Building under Construction in fixed assets schedule; the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of tax at source on the professional charges paid by the assessee was accordingly, deleted.
Decision: In assessee s favour.
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 40(a)(ia)
Disallowance under section 14AExpenditure against exempt income–Assessee made investment only in share application money
Short Overview  Where assessee made investment only in share application money; there was no merit in invoking provisions of section 14A and hence, the disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D was liable to be deleted.
AO made addition in hands of assessee-company on account of disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D.
It is held that  It was found that the assessee made investment only in share application money, thus, there was no merit in invoking provisions of section 14A and hence, the disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D was accordingly, deleted.
Decision: In assessee s favour.
IN THE ITAT, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH
SUSHMA CHOWLA, V.P. & B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M.
ACIT v. Conwood Medip Harma (P) Ltd.
ITA No. 6460/Del/2015
A.Y. 2011-12
27 April, 2020
Appellant by: Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR VP
Respondent by: Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, CAs
ORDER
Sushma Chowla, V.P.
The present appeal filed by revenue is against order of Commissioner (Appeals)-2, New Delhi dated 31-8-2015 relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under, section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal which read as under :–
i. Whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,20,64,174 on account of amount credited in bank account of the assessee in excess of receipts as per’ books of account and also allowing the assessee appeal against the rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee.
ii. Whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,02,705 made on account of difference in brokers’ account submitted by assessee and party wise gross receipts in assessee’s books of accounts.
iii. Whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2, 76,200 made on account of non deduction of TDS on professional charges.
iv. Whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,25,265 made as per rule 8D(i), (ii) & (iii) read with section 14A of the Act.
3. The Revenue has also raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under :–
i. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in admitting additional evidences without affording any opportunity to the assessing officer which is violation of Rules 46A.
4. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring income of Rs. 42,43,39,960. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee was engaged in the business of equity trading, derivatives trading and in real estate investment. The assessing officer noted from the perusal of bank statement that the amount credited into bank account of the assessee was Rs. 59,71,35,900 whereas the receipts of the year amounted to Rs. 49,50,71,726. The assessing officer also analyzed the withdrawals made by the assessing officer and the share transactions entered into by the assessee with different breakers and added the difference of 10,20,64,174 between the deposits in the bank and the receipts shown by the assessee and further added difference of Rs. 23,02,705, i.e., the difference between the broker’s statement and the receipt shown in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessing officer on the basis of certain information was of the view that the assessee was not trading in shares but was only an entry operator hence addition of Rs. 10,43,66,879 was made.
5. The next addition made in the hands of the assessee was on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act at Rs. 29,27,178. The assessee had claimed ROC expenses of Rs. 2,50,91 for enhancing its authorized share capital. However, the same was disallowed. The assessing officer also disallowed the deduction claimed on account of professional fee paid of Rs. 2,76,200 for non-deduction of tax at source. Another addition made in the hands of the assessee was the disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs. 6,25,265.
6. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee furnished written submissions and the Commissioner (Appeals) dealt with each of the issue. The first issue which was decided was the addition made after rejection of books of accounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) from para 3.0 to 3.1.9 dealt with the aforesaid issue and was of the view that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable.
7. Coming to the consequent addition made of Rs. 10,20,64,174 on account of alleged difference in receipts as per the bank account of the assessee and receipts as per its books of account. The contention of the assessee in this regard was noted vide para 4.1.3, which reads as under :–
Credit entries appearing into bank along with narration
Amount deposited into Bank Account of the appellant
Capital Receipts and revenue receipts shown in B/s and P&L A/c during the year against amount deposited into bank
Difference added by the assessing officer
Explanation on difference which is corroborated from the bank statement, etc.
A
B
A-B
Cash deposited
10,000
10,000
Cash deposited in previous year on 25-11-2009
Capital Receipts shown in Balance sheet
Indo Gulf Diagnostics & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.
77,600,000
69,650,000
7,950,000
Amount received as loan and shown in balance sheet under the head “Loans & advances”
Unibros Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd.
40,000,000
40,000,000
Rs. 40,000,000 is refund of loan given to M/s. Unibros Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. of Rs 150,000,000 on 25-8-2010 shown under Loans & advances
Roc Exp. (Company Secretary)
202,850
2,02,850
Contra Entry on account of DD cancelled us shown in bank account on 9-8-2010
Revenue from Trading in Equity (F&O) and commodity derivative (net)
Zaljog Commodities Trade Pvt. Ltd.
132,667,277
121,667,277
10,500,000
Rs. 10,500,000 (Rs 50,00,000 + Rs. 55,00,000) dated 5-7-2010 Contra entry as shown in bank statement on account of Cheque dishonored on 6-7-2010
Difference of amount appeared in bank account on account of cash deposit, contra entry, loan received back, loans & advances given duly accounted into books of accounts
58,662,850
Zaljog Commodities Trade Pvt. Ltd.
5,00,000
Rs 5,00,000 paid as Margin money on 26-6-2010 by the appellant which is received back and not considered as part of revenue or expense
R. K. Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd.
189,994,543
189,494,543
500,000
Rs. 500,000 paid as Margin money on 5-7-2010 by the appellant which is received back and not considered as part of revenue or expense
Kumar Share Brokers Ltd.
14,000,000
13,593,195
5,00,000
Rs. 500,000 paid as Margin money on 12-7-2010 by the appellant which is received back and not considered as part o f revenue or expense
(89,246)
Rs. 89,246 Debit closing balance as shown in Balance sheet under the head “Advance to Parties”.
(3,950)
Rs. 3,950 other charges shown separately in Profit & loss account
Capital Wizard Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.
22,155,231
22,155,231
Difference of amount received from Brokers with whom trading in Equity (F&O) and Commodity Derivative is done
14,06,805
Total revenue from trading
346,910,246
Revenue from Real Estate
Supertech Limited
120,506,000
70,506,000
50,000,000
Rs. 50,000,000 given advance against booking to M/s. Supertech Limited hence, net revenue considered in P&L A/ c while total receipts shown in bank account
Total Difference without considering interest accrued
110,069,655
Revenue from Interest Income
Interest income not actually received into bank
8,005,480
(8,005,480)
Interest accrued on loan credited in Profit & loss account not received in bank
Net difference added by the learned assessing officer
597,135,900
49,50,71,726
102,064,174
  1. The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed as under :–
4.1.6 In my considered view, addition made of Rs 10,20,64,174 on account of amount credited in bank account of the appellant in excess of receipts as per books of account is not sustainable in view of documentary evidences already available on record to substantiate the said difference. The assessing officer has failed to make any sincere effort regarding the same and made addition only on the basis of doubt, suspicion, conjecture or surmises without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, addition made by assessing officer is liable to be deleted.
  1. The learned DR for the Revenue has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. We find no merit in the issue raised vide ground of appeal no. 1. Before parting, we may also point out that no additional evidence was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence there is no merit in the additional ground of appeal raised by the Revenue.
  2. Now coming to next issue, i.e., against addition of Rs. 23,02,705 made on account of alleged difference in brokers’ accounts and party wise gross receipts submitted by the appellant. The assessee duly explained the said difference and the tabulated details read as under :–
Name of Party
As per Accounts of Broker submitted by Assessee
As per Party-wise detail of Gross receipts (net off toss before deducting STT)
Difference income not disclosed
Explanation/ Remarks
R.K. Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd.
19,00,94,585 (Correct Fig Rs. 19,01,50,957 gross receipts)
18,94,94,592
5,99,993 (Actually Rs. 6,56,365)
6,56,365 = (5,00,000 paid as Margin Money and not a part of gross consideration + 1,56,365 Loss not considered by assessing officer)
Zaljog Commodities Trade Pvt. Ltd.
12,22,67,276 (Correct Fig Rs 12,21,67,276 net of loss)
12,16,67,276
6,00,000 (Actually Rs 5,00,000)
Rs 5,00,000 paid as Margin Money and not a part o f gross consideration
Kumar Share Brokers Ltd.
1,41,47,171 (Correct Fig Rs. 1,44,16,594 gross receipts)
1,39,16,593
2,30,578 (A dually Rs 5,00,000)
Rs. 5,00,000 paid as Margin Money and not a part of gross consideration
Capital Wizard Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.
2,36,55,328 (net of loss and STT)
2,27,83,194
8,72,134
Rs. 8,72,134 = (Rs. 15,00,000 contra entry on account of DD cancelled as shown in ledger account of M/s. Capital Wizard less Rs. 6,27,867 STT not deducted in gross receipts by appellant)
TOTAL
35,01,64,360
34,78,61,655
23,02,705
  1. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the said addition made by the assessing officer observing that the said difference in party wise detail and brokers’ account is due to Margin Money and STT. In view of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the aforesaid addition, we find no merit in the grounds of appeal no. 2 raised by the Revenue and the same is dismissed.
  2. Now coming to the next issue of the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,76,200, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the assessee had not claimed the said professional expenses in its profit & loss account and had capitalized the same under work in progress, i.e., “Building under Construction” in fixed assets schedule. The Commissioner (Appeals) thus deleted the addition. We find merit in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and uphold that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are attracted only if expenses are claimed in the profit & loss account and not when the same are capitalized.
  3. The last addition made in the hands of the assessee was on account of disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the assessee had made investment only in share application money of Rs. 2.69 Crores as on 31-3-2011 and hence there was no merit in invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. We uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard and dismiss the ground of appeal no. 3 raised by the Revenue.
  4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Menu