For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

In the instant case, all the ground of appeal are related to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has made the payment of 2,74,49,637/- towards interest to Kotak Mahindra Bank.
The loans were sanctioned to the farmers under agricultural loans against the individual name and the said loan was directly disbursed to the assessee company under tie up arrangement with the farmers.
Therefore, the AO held that the payment of interest to bank required to be treated as payment to individuals and the assessee has to deduct tax at source but not deducted the tax per section194A, thereby violated the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly disallowed the sum of 2,74,49,637/-. Held that—Since, the loans were sanctioned under tie up arrangement of both the farmer and the assessee and the entire agricultural loans were disbursed directly to the assessee, it has shown as loan funds in the assessee’s balance sheet. It is also not disputed that the assessee has made the direct payment to the bank and there was no payment made to the individual farmers. Farmers also did not dispute the payment made to the banks and thus there was an implied agreement of the farmers for payment of interest and loan directly to the bank. It is a fact that the loan was not utilized by the farmer and the entire loan was utilized by the assessee for cold storage plant and given securities to the bank. Therefore, there is an obligation on the part of the assessee to repay the loan to the bank. Accordingly the assessee made the payment to the bank and has discharged its liability / obligation. Since the payment was directly made to the bank on behalf of the farmers it should be construed as the payment made to the bank, but not to the individual farmers, the interest payment made to the bank does not attract the TDS as per section 194A of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hold that no disallowance is called for u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. AO made the addition for the assessee’s failure to prove the credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction—Held that—The advance money, in the present case before us, is adjusted the sale price of the motor cycle and sale is disclosed in the return of income i.e. the trading account of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no ambiguity in the system followed by the assessee. From the details filed before us, DR could not point out the discrepancy in the same because these advances were adjusted against sales. When this was pointed out to Ld. Sr. DR, he stated that the assessee is unable to produce the PANs, names and addresses of the parties. He was specifically shown a tax/retail invoice wherein complete details were given except thePAN/Voter I. Card. In our view, PAN/Voter Identity Card is a KYC norm, which does not apply to the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act. We are of the view that the AO and CIT(A) both have erred in making and confirming this addition and accordingly, we delete the same - decided in favor of assessee.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 40, 68, 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961—disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)—In the instant case, all the ground of appeal are related to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has made the payment of 2,74,49,637/- towards interest to Kotak Mahindra Bank.
The loans were sanctioned to the farmers under agricultural loans against the individual name and the said loan was directly disbursed to the assessee company under tie up arrangement with the farmers.
Therefore, the AO held that the payment of interest to bank required to be treated as payment to individuals and the assessee has to deduct tax at source but not deducted the tax per section194A, thereby violated the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly disallowed the sum of 2,74,49,637/-.

Held that—Since, the loans were sanctioned under tie up arrangement of both the farmer and the assessee and the entire agricultural loans were disbursed directly to the assessee, it has shown as loan funds in the assessee’s balance sheet. It is also not disputed that the assessee has made the direct payment to the bank and there was no payment made to the individual farmers. Farmers also did not dispute the payment made to the banks and thus there was an implied agreement of the farmers for payment of interest and loan directly to the bank. It is a fact that the loan was not utilized by the farmer and the entire loan was utilized by the assessee for cold storage plant and given securities to the bank. Therefore, there is an obligation on the part of the assessee to repay the loan to the bank. Accordingly the assessee made the payment to the bank and has discharged its liability / obligation. Since the payment was directly made to the bank on behalf of the farmers it should be construed as the payment made to the bank, but not to the individual farmers, the interest payment made to the bank does not attract the TDS as per section 194A of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hold that no disallowance is called for u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

AO made the addition for the assessee’s failure to prove the credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction—Held that—The advance money, in the present case before us, is adjusted the sale price of the motor cycle and sale is disclosed in the return of income i.e. the trading account of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no ambiguity in the system followed by the assessee.

From the details filed before us, DR could not point out the discrepancy in the same because these advances were adjusted against sales. When this was pointed out to Ld. Sr. DR, he stated that the assessee is unable to produce the PANs, names and addresses of the parties. He was specifically shown a tax/retail invoice wherein complete details were given except thePAN/Voter I. Card. In our view, PAN/Voter Identity Card is a KYC norm, which does not apply to the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act. We are of the view that the AO and CIT(A) both have erred in making and confirming this addition and accordingly, we delete the same - decided in favor of assessee.[DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1) AND ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) , VIJAYAWADA VERSUS M/S MADHAVA HI-TECH COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [43] [ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM]