SIDDHARTH LAND & BUILDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1487/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 Siddharth Land & Building Pvt. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Ltd. Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCS5965J Appearances: Assessee represented by : Nilofer Parveen, AR. Department represented by : Ajit Kumar Barua, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 21.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2012-13 dated 18.03.2026. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the working made by the A.O. amounting to Rs.3,80,912/- in respect of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on alleged grounds.

“10. In Ground no. 4 as an alternative argument, it is prayed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 30% u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to page 12 of the paper book as also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) and it is argued that since the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was brought to remove the hardship, the same is curative and therefore retrospective in nature and the assessee has requested to restrict the disallowance to 30% as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2014. 11. We have considered the submissions made. In the case of Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to interpretation for retrospectivity of the provisions have held as under: “A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of statements, such as one finds in a work of fiction/non-fiction or even in a judgment of a Court of law. There is a technique required to draft a legislation as well as to understand a legislation. Former technique is known as legislative drafting and latter one is to be found in the various principles of 'Interpretation of Statutes'. Vis-à- vis ordinary prose, a legislation differs in its provenance, lay-out and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof. [Para 30] Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. One principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward. As

Deputy/Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata