TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs DCIT [2011 (9) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held that amendment to Sec. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act 2010 is effective from 1.4.2010 and does not have retrospective effect. Subsequent to this the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Virgin Creators [2011 (11) TMI 348 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that the amendment by the Finance Act 2010 is retrospective with effect from 1.4.2005. Subsequent to this decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the Bombay Tribunal in the case of Piyush Mehta Vs ACIT [2012 (4) TMI 349 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held that the judgement of Calcutta High Court being the only judgement of any High Court on this subject shall prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r scrutiny assessment and assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made on 23.11.2007, after making inter alia, following additions u/s. 40a(ia) of the Act. i. TDS was deducted on contract payments made of ₹ 67,27,304/- and not credited the same to the Govt. A/c within the stipulated time. Further, it is seen from the Audit Report Statement of Income, that the assessee has already disallowed an amount of ₹ 9,38,951/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of Contract payments. Therefore, the balance amount of ₹ 57,88,353/- shall be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia). ii. In respect of two parties namely Creata Printers and Shubham Book Binding, the assessee has made payments of ₹ 5,08,611/-, ₹ 3,41,771/- and TDS was deducted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that with the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2010, and subsequent decisions of the Tribunal it has been successfully held that amendment to Sec. 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in effect therefore the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection of 154 application. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is the say of the Ld. DR that amendment to Sec. 40(a)(ia) cannot be made the mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s. 154 of the Act. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submission. We have carefully perused the order of the authorities below. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality. A patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
