Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1140 - ITAT PUNEDisallowance of claim on account of additional cost of land - poof of obligation as per the development agreement to make any such payment - Held that:- We find the Assessing Officer has not doubted the payment to the land owners but disallowed the amount of ₹ 18 lakhs on the ground that assessee was under no obligation as per the development agreement to make any such payment. The existence of a Civil Suit on the impugned land because of which the development work on the land could not be carried out for a long time was within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. There is no dispute to the fact that the payment of ₹ 18 lakhs has been made on 17-07-2007 although the development agreement was dated 17-05-2005 and the payment have been made by crossed account payee cheque to the land owners. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A) we find no infirmity in his order. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - retrospectivity - Held that:- The assessee has made a new legal argument that the Finance Act, 2010 has amended the first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 01-04-2010 and it has been held by various judicial authorities that such amendment is retrospective in nature. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 wherein it is 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 I.T. Act., therefore, this should also be held as retrospective since it has been introduced to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the tax payers. We find some force in the above argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Antony D. Mundackal (2013 (12) TMI 67 - ITAT COCHIN ) relied on by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, had an occasion to decide an issue in the light of the above argument and has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. Thus we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the above contention of the assessee and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law.
|