TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of late deposit of TDS made *by the assessee with respect to rent, commission and maintenance expenses not appreciating fact that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a)(ia) was only effective from 01.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend or modify the ground of appeal at any time. 3. In this case Assessing Officer noted that as per column 27(b) of the Audit Report the following TDS has been deposited late. Amount of Tax Deducted / collected at source (in Rs.) Due date for remittance to Government Details of payment; Date/ (in Rs.) 2,869/- 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x was deducted could be held to be not deductible under that section. Assessee further referred to the provisions of section 40A(ia)as under:- (ia) any interest . or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, .. on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub section (1) of section 139. 4.1 Referring to the above, assessee submitted that the aforesaid section is attracted in either of the following situations:- a) If the TDS is deductible but has not been deducted. b) If the TDS has been deducted but has not been paid before 30.9.2008. 4.2 It was submitted neither of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the due date of filing of their returns under s. 139(1). In order to remedy this position and to remove the hardships which was being caused to the assessee s belonging to such category, amendments have been made in the provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. The said amendments, in our opinion, thus are clearly remedial / curative in nature as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra) and Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) and the same therefore would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1 st April, 2005. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. C.I.T. (1971) 82 ITR 570 (Supreme Court), it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that a proviso which is inserted to remedy intended consequences and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that the only grievance of the Revenue is that the amendment brought in the Income Tax Act u/s. 40(a(ia) was only effective from 1.4.2010 and not retrospective in nature. However, we find that in a catena of case laws as mentioned, it has been held that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) is remedial and curative in nature and has retrospective effect. In this case, admittedly, the TDS deducted was deposited before the date of the filing of the return and under such situation, there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Thus we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a correct view in the matter, which d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
