Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 504 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay – Proper guidance not provided to the assessee - Held that:- The Assessee’s counsel while appearing before CIT(A) did not guide the assessee properly and only after when the assessee engaged the present counsel, he has advised him to file the CO - there is no evidence or supporting document to suggest that the earlier counsel has wrongly advised the assessee - There is no confirmation from the earlier counsel what he has advised the assessee - nothing has been brought on record by the assessee with regard to the fact that which counsel has advised the assessee as stated in the affidavit and there is no affidavit or letter from the concerned counsel, who has wrongly advised the assessee. The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights - The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief - The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions - as stated in the affidavit, the reasons advanced by the assessee are not supported by any cogent evidence – thus, condonation of delay in filing the appeals of the assessee cannot be accepted on the ground that the assessee was not able to establish that it has prevented by a reasonable cause in filing these appeals belatedly – Decided against Assessee. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Held that:- There was no merit in the appeal of the Revenue - the amount has been taxed in the hands of Kranthi Constructions only - There may be so many reasons for accounting this contract receipt in the hands of the assessee and it was pleaded before us that because of mistake in 26AS issued by the contractor, the entry was made in the books of account of the assessee - the amount was offered for taxation in the hands of Kranthi Constructions and it cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Being so there is no question of deduction of TDS by the assessee on the payment received by the Kranthi Constructions. There is insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 wherein stated that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act need not be made if the assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act – it is retrospective in nature since it has been introduced to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the tax payer – Relying upon Antony D. Mundackal vs. ACIT 2013 (12) TMI 67 - ITAT COCHIN] – thus, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Revenue.
|