Chemtech Processors, Tiruppur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.2216/Mds/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, sitting as a fact-finding appellate authority, holds that where an assessee places before it additional material that was not before the lower authorities, and that material bears directly on whether the disputed payment was a liability of the previous year (an expenditure) or a current-account transaction, the question of disallowance under Section 40A(3) cannot be resolved on the existing record and must be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of that material after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Coimbatore, dated
30.06.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. No.2216/Mds/14
2. Sh. T. Banusekar, the Ld. representative for the assessee,
submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the payment made
by the assessee under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(in short 'the Act') on the ground that the same was paid to settle the
liability of the previous year which was due to purchase of wind
energy, pre-export garments and cloths from M/s Reliance Dyeing
Works. Filing additional material before this Tribunal, the Ld.
representative submitted that on the basis of the statement
recorded under Section 131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer came
to a conclusion that the payment made by the assessee was to be
disallowed. However, the material available on record suggests that
the payment was made towards current account. The material
available on record clearly indicates that the payment was made
towards running a current account. Therefore, the provisions of
Section 40A(3) of the Act is not applicable. The Ld. representative
further clarified that the payment made by the assessee did not
relate to any expenditure at all. The Ld. representative further
submitted that the Assessing Officer made disallowance only on the
basis of the statement recorded from one Shri S.P. Saravanan on
08.03.2010 under Section 131 of the Act. In view of the material
available on record, according to the Ld. representative, there
cannot be any disallowance.
3 I.T.A. No.2216/Mds/14
3. On the contrary, Shri N. Madhavan, the Ld. Departmental
Representative, submitted that the assessee has now filed
additional material before this Tribunal for admission under Rule 29
of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. According to the Ld. D.R.,
these documents were not available before the lower authorities.
Therefore, if the Tribunal intends to take the additional material on
record, an opportunity may be given to the Assessing Officer to
examine the same. The Ld. D.R. further pointed out that the
Managing Partner of the assessee, during examination on
08.03.2010, admitted that the payments were made towards liability
of the previous year for purchasing of wind energy, garments, etc.
Therefore, it is an expenditure, hence, the Assessing Officer has
rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee.
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and
perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer
disallowed the claim of the assessee towards cash payments
exceeding `20,000/- on the ground that the same was relatable to
expenditure for purchasing of wind energy, garments, etc. Now the
assessee claims that it was not an expenditure and the payments
were made towards running a current account. The assessee has
filed additional material before this Tribunal to establish that what 4 I.T.A. No.2216/Mds/14
was paid by it is only a current account transaction and not any
expenditure. As rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R., these materials
were not available before the lower authorities. Therefore, the
Assessing Officer had no occasion to consider these materials.
This Tribunal being a fact finding authority, the facts are to be
brought on record so as to enable the appellate forum to appreciate
the grievance of the assessee while examining the question of law.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the
additional material filed by the assessee needs to be examined by
the Assessing Officer to find out whether the payment made by the
assessee was relating to the liability of the previous year or it is only
a transaction in the nature of current account. Accordingly, the
orders of the lower authorities are set aside. The entire issue of
disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act is remitted back to the
file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-
examine the issue afresh in the light of the additional material filed
before this Tribunal and thereafter decide the issue after giving
reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes.
5 I.T.A. No.2216/Mds/14
Order pronounced on 26th June, 2015 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai, th 5दनांक/Dated, the 26 June, 2015.
Kri.
आदे श क/ - त6ल7प अ8े7षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ,/Appellant 2. -.यथ,/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु9त (अपील)/CIT(A)-II, Coimbatore
4. आयकर आयु9त/CIT-III, Coimbatore
5. 7वभागीय - त न ध/DR
6. गाड( फाईल/GF.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free