Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
Per S.S.Godara, JM:
This Assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Nagpur’s order dated 07.06.2018 involving in proceedings u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. Ground No.1: The additions may be restricted to 30%. The additions made by Ld. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, could have been restricted to 30%, as per section 40(a)(ia) [As amended]. The Ld. Principle Commissioner has ignored the amendment brought in by the A.Y. 2009-10 Sai Enterprises Vs. Pr.CIT(Central) [A]
Finance Act in this respect which is applicable retrospective considering the judicial pronouncement. Note:- This ground has been taken first time before the Honourable ITAT-Pune Bench. 2) Ground No.2: The Ld.Principle of commissioner of Income Tax, has not taken into account the taxes paid on the sum credited/paid to the parties/payees. Note:- This ground has been taken first time before the Honourable ITAT-Pune Bench. 3) The action of the Ld.Principle Commissioner, being untenable in law may kindly be cancelled. 4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, and substitute any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee does not challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s action revising the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) assessment herein thereby terming it as an erroneous one, causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. We thus, affirm the PCIT’s order under challenge to this extent.
4. Next comes the assessee sole substantive argument the impugned section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance ought to be restricted to @30% only as per relevant amendment in the statutory provision by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Learned Counsel sought to buttress the point that the foregoing amendment is curative in nature having retrospective effect. The same is found to be without
A.Y. 2009-10 Sai Enterprises Vs. Pr.CIT(Central) [A] any substance as per the hon’ble apex court’s recent decision in Shree Choudhary Transport Company Vs. ITO [2020] 118 taxmann.com 47 (SC) holding has stated the law that the foregoing statutory amendment as carrying prospective effect only. We reject the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground therefore.
Delay of 24 days is condoned for the reasons stated in assessee’s contention petition.
The assessee’s is appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th July, 2022.