IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC-1’: NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBE
ITA No.6547/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 2012-13]
Neetu Juneja, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Tirupati Indane, 28n Ward-3, Netaji Colony, Sanoli Raod, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Haryana PAN-AFYPJ5593G Respondent Appellant
Appellant by Sh. K.C. Aneja, AR Respondent by Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 08.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.05.2021
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the
order dated 20.06.2018 of the learned CIT(A), Karnal, relating to
AY-2012-13.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-
i. That without being prejudice to the interest of the revenue shop & godown security guards salaries of Rs.324000/- paid to four individual persons and the A.O. without considering the facts disallowed on the 2 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
pretext of not deducted tax at source and The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.
ii. That no services of any contractor were availed and the A.O. merely conjecture having made payments to contractor for Rs.324000/- without TDS and wrongly disallowed the salaries.
iii. That inspite of confirmations submitted the AO without application of his mind arbitrarily disallowed the shop rent paid Rs.120000/- & godown rent of Rs.236379/- to four co-owners individuals and the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.
iv. That interest of Rs.86,410/- has wrongly been charged on advances made for commercial expediency.
v. That there was no justification for adding Rs.250000 for alleged low house hold expenses.
vi. That the assessee was disturbed due to family feuds as such delay caused if any please be condoned.
vii. That the appellant craves for leave to add & amend any grounds of appeal before the hearings.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an
individual and is proprietor of the concern styled Tirupati Indane,
engaged in the business of Indane Gas Service at Samalkha. She
filed her return of income 17.09.2012 declaring taxable income at
Rs.5,05,730/-. During the course of assessment proceedings,
the AO noted that the assessee claimed security expenses at
Rs.3,24,000/-. However, she has not deducted TDS as per the
provisions of section 194-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In
absence of any reply to the query raised by the AO, invoking the 3 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
provisions of section 40a(ia), the AO made disallowance of Rs.3,24,000/-. Similarly on account of non-deduction of TDS from the godown rent of Rs.2,36,379/- and shop rent of Rs.1,20,000/-, the AO made an addition of Rs.3,56,379/- in absence of any reply to the query raised by him. The AO also disallowed proportionate interest @15% on interest free advance of Rs.5,59,159/- in absence of any plausible explanation. Since, the assessee had shown withdrawal of household expenses of Rs.1,06,000/- only for meeting the expenses and considering the fact that the assessee has two children in the age group of 14 year and 11 years who are both school going and husband of the assessee is earning only Rs.2.50 lakhs per annum, the AO made estimated addition of Rs.25,000/- on account of withdrawals for house hold expenses. Similarly, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.62,176/- being 1/6th of the total expenses to Rs.3,73,060/- incurred by the assessee on account of car running expenses, car depreciation, maintenance expenses, car insurance, telephone/mobile bill and interest on car loan for probable personal use. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,59,700/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,05,750/- 4 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
4. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) called for a remand report
from the AO. After considering the remand report of the AO and
rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, he restricted the
disallowance of various expenses from 1/6th to 1/10 of the
expenses and sustained the remaining additions.
5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the
assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
6. We have heard the rival arguments made by the both
the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the
learned CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.
We have also considered the various decisions cited before us.
The first issue raised in the grounds of appeal relates to the
disallowance of Rs.3,24,000/- paid to four individual security
guards appointed by the assessee. We find the AO disallowed an
amount of Rs.3,24,000/- being the salary paid to the security
guards on the ground that such payments have been made to the
contractor without deducting tax u/s 194-C of the Act. We find
the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing as under:-
“I have considered the submissions made by the appellant as well as the remand report of the A.O. dated 01.01.2018. The findings of the AO has clearly shown that no copy of salary register or attendance register was filed nor was the mode of payment indicated. Payments to security guards have been 5 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
indicated separately in the P & L A/c. The assessee has not been able to controvert this finding of the A.O. I, therefore, confirm the said addition. This ground of appeal is dismissed.”
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
assessee that no service of the contractor was availed by her and
the payment was made to individual persons and confirmation
were also filed before the learned CIT(A). We find the learned
CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that this evidence is not a
clinching evidence with regard to proof of payment of salary to
the persons engaged by her as security guards. According to her,
the assessee has not produced copy of any salary register and
attendance register. We find the assessee in the instant case is a
small assessee and has produced confirmation of the persons on
the letter head of its firm as proof of payment of salary to these
persons. Merely because the assessee has not disclosed mode of
payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same in our
opinion should not doubted by the learned CIT(A) especially when
such salary to security guards comes to Rs.27,000/- per month
for four persons. Even, if the payment is made in cash, there will
be no violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. We, therefore, hold
that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition 6 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
of Rs.3,24,000/- paid to four individual persons towards salary
to security guards. The first issue raised by the assessee is
accordingly allowed.
8. The next issue raised in the grounds of appeal relates
to the disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of shop rent and
Rs.2,36,379/- on account of godown rent.
9. After hearing both the sides, we find the AO disallowed
the amount of Rs.3,56,379/- i.e. (Rs.2,36,379 + Rs.1,20,000)
incurred by the assessee as shop rent and godown rent on the
ground that the assessee did not file any reply to the query raised
by him. We find before the learned CIT(A) has submitted that
godown rent of Rs.2,36,379/- was paid to four person who are
joint owners of the godown and whose details are as under:-
i. Jagdish Parshad Jain S/o Sh. Umrav Singh Jain of
Samalkha,
ii. Jai Pal Jain S/o Sh. Murav Singh Jain of Samalkha
iii. Manoj Jain S/o Sh. Ramesh Jain of Samalkha
iv. Mahavir Prasad Jain S/o Sh. Umrav Singh Jain of
Samalkha 7 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
10. It was argued that each co-owner was paid rent of
Rs.59334/- in a year and each persons TDS liability was below
taxable limit of Rs.180000/- u/s 194(I) of the Act.
11. Similarly, office rent of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid to
Mr. Ashok Juneja who is proprietor of M/s Devsons Sanitation
and is an exiting income tax assessee at Panipat, who has filed
income tax return for AY 2012-13. Further, the rent paid was
below statutory limit u/s 194(1) of the Act and therefore there
was no necessity for deducting tax source. However, we find the
learned CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report from the AO
dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue by
observing as under:-
“5.3. The A.O. has clearly pointed out the
absence of documentary evidence in respect of rent paid
at the assessment as well as the remand stage. The
documents submitted are basically certificates issued by
the appellants and purportedly singed by the co-owners
which lack verifiablility. The so-called rent agreement is
also undated. In the absence of the same, the addition
has been correctly made and I confirm the same. This
ground of appeal is dismissed.”
12. We find the assessee neither at the assessment stage
nor at the remand stage has produced sufficient documents or
evidence for the allowability of the rent. Considering the totality
of facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it 8 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to
grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her
case and decide the issue as per fact and law. Accordingly, the
second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is
allowed for statistical purpose.
13. The next issue raised in the grounds of appeal relates
to the disallowance of 86,410/- being proportionate interest on
advance of Rs.5,59,159/- to different persons
14. After hearing both the sides, we find the AO disallowed
the above amount of Rs.86,410/- being proportionate interest on
interest free advance of Rs.5,59,159/-. We find before the
learned CIT(A), it was argued that such amount was advanced for
business purposes, and therefore, it was for commercial
expediency. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders ltd. vs CIT reported in
(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC), no disallowance is called for. However, the
learned CIT(A) dismissed the ground holding that no plausible
explanation was offered for the query raised on this issue except
stating that it was needed for business dealings. From the
various details furnished by the assessee, we do not find what
was the reason for giving such advance. The commercial 9 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
expediency of the same has not been established. Further, it has
not been established as to whether the assessee’s own capital
and free reserves are more than the interest free advance
extended by the assessee during the impugned assessment year.
Considering the totality of facts of the case and in the interest of
justice, we restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction
to give one more opportunity to substantiate the commercial
expediency or to substantiate that her own capital and free
reserves is more than the interest free advances given. The AO
shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground
no.4 is allowed for statistical purpose.
15. The next issue relates to the disallowance of
Rs.25,000/- for alleged low house hold expenses.
16. After hearing both the sides, we find the AO
disallowed of Rs.25,000/- on estimate basis being probable
house hold expenditure on the ground that the assessee’s
withdrawal is only Rs.1,06,000/- and her husband is earning
approximate Rs.2.50 laksh per annum and the family of the
assessee consists of the assessee, her husband and two school
going children in the age group of 14 and 11 years. It is the 10 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that
contribution of her husband is about Rs.2 lakhs and the
assessee has shown withdrawal at Rs.1,06,000/- and such
combined withdrawal is reasonable for meeting house hold
expenses. We find some force in the above arguments of the
learned counsel for the assessee. The addition made by the AO is
purely on surmises and conjectures and nothing has been
brought on record to show any extravagant expenditure incurred
by the assessee during the year. Since, the addition made by the
AO is based on surmises and conjectures, which has been upheld
by the learned CIT(A), therefore, we set-aside the order of the
learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance.
Grounds No.4 and 5 are accordingly allowed.
17. Ground no.6 and 7 being general in nature are
dismissed.
18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly
allowed for statistical purpose.
Order was pronounced in the open Court on 28.05.2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.K.PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated: 28/05/2021. 11 ITA No.6547/Del/2018
f{x~{tÜ? fÜA P.S Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR
|