ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAUMYA LANTECH DRILLING SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 203/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had deducted the TDS and paid it to the Central Government, although a small part of the payment amounting to Rs. 27,752/- was delayed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer had made a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on a payment of Rs. 2,28,48,500/-, as the amount was deducted but paid beyond the due date.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is justified when TDS is deducted but paid beyond the due date, especially for a small portion of the total payment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sonu Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.08.2025Pronounced: 02.09.2025

ORDER Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-21/11321/2017-18 dated 28.09.2024. 2. Shri Sonu Jain represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 24 days. The revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

4.

It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of non-deduction of TDS in respect of payment of Rs.2,28,48,500/-. It was the submission that the amount had been deducted but was not paid during the year. It was the submission that the amount having been paid beyond the due date. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in the present case clearly show that the assessee has deducted the TDS and has paid the same to the account of the Central Government. This has also confirmed by the ld. AR and the challan of the payment of the same has also been produced. It was the submission that only a part of the payment was delayed and therefore the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. Admittedly, it is clear that the TDS in respect of payments have been made by the assessee. This is only a small amount of Rs.27,752/- which has been paid on 29.09.2013. We are of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 2nd September, 2025.

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 →