TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return. There is mandatory requirement under Chapter XVII-B of the Act to deduct TDS under certain eventualities and in case of failure to do so, consequences have also been mentioned under Section 201. With the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, exception has been carved that subject to the fulfilment of condition as stipulated in first proviso to Section 201 of the Act, the assessee shall not be treated as assessee in default and the expenses so claimed will be allowed. This Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Vs. Shivpal Singh Chaudhary [2018 (7) TMI 1850 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and first proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant by grossly violating the principles of natural justice? B) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of authorities below thereby confirming disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the well settled law as laid down in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226(SC)? C) Whether the ITAT was justified in ignoring the principles of consistency by not following their own well settled law that when the payee had paid the due taxes, assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default as decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed time and again by the Hon'ble Chandigar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made of ₹ 15,000/- was set aside. 7. Further, appeal was filed before the Tribunal. Appeal was fixed for hearing on 17.06.2016. A request was made on behalf of the appellant for adjournment to enable it to produce certificates under Section 201(1) of the Act. Instead of granting adjournment, the Tribunal reserved the order and vide order dated 21.06.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 8. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, an application was moved for adducing additional evidence. After notice, the application was allowed and additional evidence was taken on record. 9. In the additional evidence, the appellant has produced a certificate under Section 201(1) of the Act. In the said certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant on which there was failure to deduct TDS, have been credited by the payee in its Profit Loss account and has filed his income tax returns accordingly. 13. Learned counsel for the Revenue rebutted the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant. It was argued that the certificates now being relied upon in this Court were never produced before the Assessing Officer and the Revenue was deprived of an opportunity to verify the certificates. 14. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to quote second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) as was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 : Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. 17. First proviso to Section 201 stipulates that a person who has failed to deduct tax in accordance with provisions of Section XVII-B shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default, if a certificate is furnished from an accountant in a prescribed form to the effect that resident has furnished return of Income Tax under Section 139 of the Act; has taken into account the sum received for computing income in the return of income tax and has paid tax due on the income declared by him in such return. 18. There is mandatory requirement under Chapter XVII-B of the Act to deduct TDS under certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
