TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the disallowance on account of delay of payment of TDS by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for transport payments. For this, assessee raised following ground no. 1: 1. That the Hon ble CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,45,307/- on account of delay of payment of TDS. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income for relevant AY 2006-07 on 30.10.2006 and assessee s case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Assessment was framed by AO under section 143(3) of the Act by making disallowance on account of transportation charges of ₹ 2,45,307/- by invoking the provisions of section 40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Sm. Anumita Sarkar stated that this issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue by the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations in ITAT No.302 of 2011, GA No.3200/2011 dated 23.11.2011, wherein Hon ble High Court has confirmed coordinate bench decision of ITAT in ITA No.267/K/2009 A Bench, in the case of Virgin Creations Vs. ITO dated 15.12.2010. Tribunal has considered the decisions of Mumbai Bench of this ITAT in the case of M/s. Bansal Parivahan (India) P. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.2355/Mum/10 and of Ahmedabad Bench B in ITA No. 3983/Ahd/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendments, in our opinion, thus are clearly remedial/curative in nature as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Mom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) and the same therefore would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala 82 ITR 570, it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. In the present case, the amount of tax deducted at source from the freight charges during the period 01/04/2005 to 28/02/2006 was paid by the assessee in the months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in July and August 2006, i.e. well before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration. This factual position was undisputed. Moreover, the Supreme Court, as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
