Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 6 v. Western Auto Spares

C/TAXAP/184/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 184 of 2018 ==========================================================PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6VersusWESTERN AUTO SPARES ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 19/03/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.8.2017 raising the following questions for our consideration : “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,81,53,505/- on account of difference in value of sales as shown in financial books and VAT return? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,03,95,993/- due to non deduction of TDS on contract payment?” With respect to the first question, the Tribunal made the following observations : “3. We have heard both the parties strongly reiterating their respective stands in the course of hearing. Learned Departmental Representative seeks to draw vehement support from the Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned addition. His case is that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted assessee’s relevant figures shown in VAT return giving rise to the impugned differential amount. We find no merit in the instant plea. It has come on record that the assessee has already reconciled the above difference as forming part of the paper book pages 32 to 54. It is an admitted fact that the difference in question between assessee’s sales declared in P&L account and VAT return arises because of exclusion of excise duty in its books. The Revenue fails to rebut this clinching finding in the course of hearing before us. We therefore affirm CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned addition. The Revenue fails in its first substantive ground.” With respect to second question, the Tribunal had made the observations as under : “5. Heard both parties. Relevant case records perused. The Assessing Officer admittedly invoked the impugned disallowance provision qua raw material purchases involving the above amount of Rs.1,03,95,993/-. Mr. Madhusudan fails to dispute that assessee has already deducted TDS on all other payments of labour job works. The issue that arises in the instant substantive ground is that of TDS deduction qua assessee’s raw material purchases. We sought Revenue’s response to enlightenment as to how and under what statutory provision the above raw material purchases are liable to be deducted TDS under chapter XVIIB of the Act. It fails to indicate any such provision as is the CIT(A)’s reason in above extracted finding. No case therefore is made out in Revenue’s instant substantive ground to revive the impugned disallowance as deleted hereinabove in lower appellate proceedings.” It can thus be seen that with respect to these questions CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal had concurrently come to the conclusion that difference in the value of sales shown in financial book and VAT return was merely on account of change in accounting method and the assessee had made all necessary TDS on labour job work charges respectively. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) raghu (B.N. KARIA, J)