Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 05-12-2017 passed in case No.0815/CIT(A)-2/Hyd/2016-17, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 09 days delay in filing, stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond his control as per condonation petition/affidavit.
No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.
The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
1)The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous, illegal and held contrary to the facts of the instant case. 2)The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer without giving proper opportunity to the appellant. 3)The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer with regard to disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I T Act. 4)The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing expenditure of Rs.81,82,871/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act. Without Considering the appellant submissions. 5)The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing shooting expenditure an amount of Rs of Rs 8,61,764/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act. Without considering the appellant submissions. 6)The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) without considering the submissions of the appellant. 7) Any other grounds/ground may be urged at the time of hearing
Learned counsel’s sole substantive argument during the course of hearing is that Section 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted in the Act, vide Finace Act, 2012, w.e.f.01-04-2013 stipulating non-application of the impugned disallowance in case the assessee is not the assessee in default u/s.201(1) of the Act, is squarely applicable herein as the assessee’s payees stand duly assessed qua the corresponding receipts in their respective returns. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that this clinching fact is yet to be verified at the Assessing Officer’s end.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. It is made clear that although the legislature had inserted foregoing proviso in the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013, case law CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Townships (P) Ltd., (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) holds it as having retrospective effect being curative in nature. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for his necessary factual verification. Learned counsel undertakes that the assessee shall file all the detailed evidence(s) to this effect before the Assessing Officer in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.