ORUGANTI SOWBHAGYAM,GANJAM vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 291/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 December 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 194C(6) of the Income Tax Act, which were effective from 01.06.2015, could not be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee made a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to a transporter. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the amended provisions of Section 194C(6) are applicable retrospectively to disallow expenses for non-deduction of TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Appellant: Shri Bhagaban Padhee, AR
For Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Hearing: 15/11

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar dated 12.6.2019 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The sole ground raised by the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) is not

justified in confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) of

the Act.

3.

Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that non-deduction of TDS while

making deposit to transporter providers on declaration of PAN Number

which came into effect from 1.10.2009. ld A.R. further submitted that the

amended provisions laid down u/s.194C(6) of the I.T.Act, 1961 (in short

P a g e 1 | 4

ITA No.291/CT K/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

the ‘Act’) is operative w.e.f. 1.6.2015 and payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the

transporter disallowed by the AO u/s,. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of

non-deduction of TDS is pertaining to financial year 2010-2011 relevant to

assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, amended provision of sub-section(6)

of Section 194C of the Act cannot be applied retrospectively for making

addition. Ld A.R. submitted that since the amended provision is applicable

from 1.6.2015 i.e. from financial year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year

2016-17 onwards, therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) in para 3.2 of the

order are not sustainable. Hence, the AO may kindly be directed to delete

the addition.

4.

Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted that in pursuance to the order

of Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar u/s.263 of the Act dated 14.3.2016, the AO was

directed to frame denovo assessment order and in pursuance thereto, the

Assessing Officer passed reassessment order u/s.263/143(3) on 23.12.2016.

Ld D.R. submitted that on the date of passing order, the amendment

inserted by the legislature was operative and effective and, therefore, the

AO was right in making the addition and ld CIT(A) was also correct in

confirming the same. However, on being asked by the bench, ld D.R. could

not controvert that the amendment inserted by Finance Act,2015 to sub-

section(6) of Section 194C has been given effect from 1.6.2015 and there is

no mandate or direction of the legislature to apply the same retrospectively

which may cover assessment year under consideration i.e. 2011-12.

P a g e 2 | 4

ITA No.291/CT K/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

5.

On careful consideration of the rival submissions, first of all, I may

point out that the amendment has been inserted by Finance Act, 2015 to

sub-section(6) of Section 194C of the Act, which has been held as effective

w.e.f. 1.6.2015, which disentitle the assessee from benefit of first limb of

sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act as the legislature in its wisdom

added words “where such contractor owns ten or less goods carriage at any

time during the previous year and furnishes a declaration to that effect

along with”. In my humble understanding, the purpose of insertion of said

provisions of sub-section(6) to section 194C was that the legislature in its

wisdom wanted to give relaxation of this provision only in a case where the

contractor owns ten or less goods carriage at any time during the previous

year and furnishes a declaration to that effect alongwith his Permanent

Account Number, to the person paying or crediting such sum” on which

TDS u/s.194C was required to be made.

6.

In my humble understanding, the present case under consideration is

pertaining to payment of amount to contractor by the assessee relates to

assessment year 2011-12 and I am unable to agree with the contention of

ld D.R. that the amended sub-section(6) of Section 194C can be placed into

service against the assessee for assessment year 2012-12 as it is ample

clear from the Finance Act, 2015 that said amended provisions has been

given effect from 1.6.2015 which falls within the ambit of financial year

2015-16. I therefore, hold that the basis taken by the AO and conclusion

P a g e 3 | 4

ITA No.291/CT K/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

drawn by the CIT(A) in para 3.2 in his order cannot be held as sustainable

and justified and thus, I dismiss the same. The AO is directed to delete the

addition of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the sole ground of the assessee is

allowed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 4 /11/2019.

Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 4 /12/2019 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Oruganti Sowbhagyam , Balaji Weight Bridge Utkal Ashram Road, near Ganjamkala Parishad, Berhampur

2.

The Respondent. DCIT , Berhampur 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →