9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dr Mehli Adi Nazir. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the ground that Dr Adi R Nazir and Dr Mehli A Nazir have been regular in filing their returns of income and both have paid income-tax due on their income for the relevant assessment year. Therefore there is no loss to the revenue in default made u/s 40(a)(ia). 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the ground that the claim of payment to his son was a very rare case of technical default. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the fact that the words paid and payable in sec. 40(a) (ia) clearly distinguish the payments made and payments not made at the end of the year. The option of system of cash and mercantile has to be reckoned with in relation to sec 40(a)(ia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA). Before him it was argued that Dr. M.A. Nazir, the son of the assessee, had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 26.12.2006, returning income of Rs. 23.77 Lakhs, that the professional income received from the assessee amounting to Rs. 2.40 Lakhs was included in the return of Dr. M.A.Nazir, that the son of the assessee had paid tax on the amount received by him from his father, that it was a technical mistake on part of the assessee. Before him, it was also argued that in the case of Teja Construction ITAT, Hyderabad (129 TTJ 57 had held that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were applicable to the amounts rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on 15th July 2014. He also referred to the decision of S.M.Anand of Bangalore Tribunal (ITA/1831/Bang/2013). Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO and the FAA. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. Undisputed facts of the case that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 2.40 lakhs to his son without deducting tax at source, that the AO had disallowed the said amount invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We find that the Hon'ble Karnatake High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Shetty (supra) has held that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective.Therefor, We hold that if the deductee pays the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
