Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers ... vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal30 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a payment made to a consignment agent is a reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the agent, supported by necessary evidence, and the agent has deducted tax at source on those payments and deposited it within the prescribed time, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is warranted, and the expenses are to be allowed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALAHMEDABAD "D" BENCHBefore: Shri Shailendra Kr. Yadav, Judicial Memberand Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant MemberITA No. 3871/Ahd/2008Assessment Year 2005-06Gujarat Narmada Joint Commission ofValley Fertilizers Co. Income Tax,Ltd, Vs Bharuch Range,(Narmada Chematur Bharuch.Petrochemicals Ltd (Respondent)Now merged withGNFC Ltd)P.O. Narmadanagar,Bharuch(Appellant)Revenue by: Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr.D.R.Assessee by: Shri Sanjay R. Shah , A.R.Date of hearing : 23-04-2015Date of pronouncement : 30-04-2015आदे श/ORDERPER : SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is a recalled matter. In fact, appeal has recalled vis- a-vis ground No. 6 which was not adjudicated at the relevant I.T.A No. 3871/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 2 Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd vs. JCIT

point of time so it was recalled. Order was recalled by way of Miscellaneous Application on this issue. So, issue before us is with regard to disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the expenses amounting to Rs. 40,40,269/- to the consignment agent. In this regard, Ld. Authorized Representative pointed out that this issue has been deleted in assessee's own case in ITA No. 827 and 1003/Ahd/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein similar issue vide para 37 has been decided in favour of assessee by observing as under:-

"37. We have perused the order of the authorities below and heard the arguments both the sides. The nature of payment is reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the agent which necessary evidence has been filed before us. The agent had deducted the TDS on these payments and paid to the exchequer within prescribed time. Thus, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue."

2. Nothing contrary has been brought to our knowledge on behalf of the assessee. Facts being similar so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of expenses amounting to Rs. 40,40,269/- reimbursed to the consignment agent. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the same.

I.T.A No. 3871/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 3 Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd vs. JCIT

3. As a result, appeal filed by assessee on this issue is allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page i.e. 30/04/2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 30/04/2015 ak आदे श क ूितिल प अमे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. Assessee

2. Revenue

3. Concerned CIT

4. CIT (A)

5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. Guard file.

By order/आदे श से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद

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