9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thereafter the assessment was completed on 15.12.2011 and no taxable income was found. Thereafter proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated and an order was passed on 28.3.2014. The order of the assessing officer was set aside and he was directed to re-decide the matter afresh. In pursuance of the above order, the assessing officer passed an order under Section 143(3) on 31.12.2014. He disallowed the amount of Rs. 10,34,600/- as part of the transportation charges which was said to be paid to one Sri Anand Kumar Agrawal (Transporter). The assessment was thus completed adding the said amount to the income of the petitioner. The revision filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act was dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to decide the matter as a whole afresh and, therefore, the assessing officer has not committed any error of jurisdiction in dealing with the claim of transportation charges. In respect to the other aspect he has submitted that Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act as introduced by the Finance Act 2010, is not retrospective in nature and it cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the date of deduction the tax at source has not been disclosed and the deposit of the same has been made subsequent to the due date of filing the return. The order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 28.3.2014 passed under Section 263 of the Act clearly reveals that the order of the assessing officer was not only set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revious year or in the subsequent year before the expiry of the time prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 200 of the Act shall not be deductible from the income. The time prescribed under sub section 1 of Section 200 is the time for filing of the TDS return which happened to be 31.3.2009/31.5.2009. The petitioner deposited the TDS on 3.9.2009 which is admittedly after the expiry of the due date for filing the TDS return. Therefore, the benefit of sub section (ia) as introduced with effect from 1.4.2005 vide Finance Act, 2004 as it stood at the relevant time was not admissible to the petitioner. The submission of Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid subsection was subsequently amended by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 2010 only provides that the aforesaid provision is applicable with effect from 1.4.2010. Nonetheless the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide judgement and order dated 23rd November, 2011 passed in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Virgin Creations held that amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and the benefit therein would be admissible even to the cases of the period prior to the aforesaid amendment. The said view was taken by the Calcutta High Court on the basis of three Judges decision of the Supreme Court in the case Alied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in [AIR 1997 SC 1367] and one another decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Altom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
