TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar [2013 (7) TMI 454 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we delete the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5900/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2015 - N. K. Saini, AM And I. C. Sudhir, JM,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri Pradeep Dinodia R K Kapoor, CA For the Respondent : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Sani,AM. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.09.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer regarding reopening asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection received by the AO on account of these two issues and required the assessee to explain its stand on the issues on which Audit Officer had questioned the AO. In response to the same, the assessee vide its letter dated 28th February 2008 had explained to the AO as to how the audit objection was not sustainable and the AO had taken the correct view of the matter, because- (i) There was no default on the part of the assessee to make TDS from the interest payment. Details of all the TDS deducted along with copies of challans were supplied to the AO vide assessee's said letter. (ii) Thereafter, there was a notice u/s 154/155 of the I. T. Act vide which the AO wanted to carry out rectifications under these provisions on the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ground no. 6 i.e. non-deduction of TDS on the interest payment, we would again like to refer to our detailed submissions made to the AO against notice u/s 148. Our submissions dated 25th March 2011 contain the clarification on this issue, which is reiterated as it is. Even the clarification vide assessee's letter dated 28th February 2008 would make it crystal clear that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make the TDS, as has been alleged. All the details of interest payment along with rate at which TDS was deducted, copies of challans and the date of deposit, has been clarified. Therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) invoked by the AO are clearly misplaced and have been applied in mechanical way without applyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment on account of interest. However, as per the above details, the amount remitted is ₹ 31,45,384/-. The appellant has further claimed that ₹ 8,60,713/- has been remitted on 29.04.2004. However, since this amount has been remitted in the next financial year, therefore, benefit of this remittance cannot be given. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest expense of ₹ 31,45,384/- on which TDS has been deducted and disallow rest of the amount. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Section 139(1) of the Act. The amended section 40(a)(ia) expands and further liberalises the statue when it stipulates that deductions made in the first eleven months of the previous year but paid before the due date of filing of the return, will constitute sufficient compliance. 11. In the present case also since the assessee has deposited the TDS on 29.04.2004 before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, we delete the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 12. No other ground except Ground No. 4 was argued before us. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
