VIMAL BALVANT MAVANI (HUF),CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 12(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2228/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 December 2017AY 2013-145 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the second return should be considered as filed under Section 139(1) of the Act, not Section 139(5), given the extended due date for filing returns. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an original return of income, then a revised return after paying TDS that was initially disallowed. The Assessing Officer treated the second return as invalid because it was filed after the original return was processed.

What were the issues?

Whether a return filed after the processing of the original return, but before the extended due date for filing, can be considered a valid revised return. The allowability of a deduction under Section 40(a)(ia) when TDS is paid before the due date of filing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 139(5),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Hearing: 21.12.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-13, Chennai dated 13.07.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee raised the following grounds for adjudication.

1.

The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is incorrect, opposed to law and facts and is liable to be set aside.

2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the Return filed u/s.139(5) is invalid and non est.

2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance uls.40(a)(ia) was no longer required, which is a bona fide mistake and thus ought to have accepted the revised return.

2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not noting the fact that in any case, the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is unwarranted in so far as the tax deductible on the said sum has been remitted to the exchequer on or before the due date for filing the return of income.

3. As an alternate contention, without prejudice to the above grounds, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the amount of Rs. 14,09,819/- in the subsequent year in which the TDS was remitted. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering this specific plea raised before him.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Vimal Balvant Mavani HUF e-filed return of income on 01.10.2013 admitting an income of `18,65,540/- At that time, the assessee had not paid the deducted tax of `14,09,819/- required to be deducted u/s.194H of the Act. Therefore, the assessee filed a revised return of income at `4,55,720/-, this time withdrawing the disallowance of `14,09,819/- made in the original return of income.

3.1 The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The issue before the AO was whether the second return furnished by the assessee (HUF) could be treated as revised return. In the first return of income, the assessee on his own disallowed sum of `12,09,891/- as interest payment without TDS and `2,00,000/- and commission payment without TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee has furnished the first return before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act.

The same was also processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Meanwhile, date for filing u/s 139 was extended, so assessee paid the TDS in to Government account and thereafter filed another return u/s 139(5) of the Act. However, the assessing officer based on clean reading of the section 139(5) of the Act did not treat the second return filed as revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act as the same was filed after processing of return u/s 143(1) of the original return. And thereby treated the second return filed u/s 139(5) of the Act as an invalid return and treated it as non- ext. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.

4.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the tax has been deducted and remitted to the Central Government as below:-

Amount paid (`) TDS (`) Dated 1,00,000/- 11,200/- 21.10.2013 11,200/- 21.10.2013 1,00,000/- 1,31,870/- 21.10.2013 12,09,819/- As per CBDT Circular No.225/117/2013/ITA.II dated 26.09.2013, the due date for filing of return and audit report electronically is extended upto 31st October, 2013, which was originally on or before 30th September, 2013 for assessment year 2013-14. As per first proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, if the assessee deducted the TDS and paid the same before the due date of filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act, it is to be allowed as deduction.

4.1 In the present case, the date for filing the return has been extended to 31.10.2013. The return filed by the assessee cannot be considered as a return u/s.139(5) of the Act instead it should be considered as the return filed in terms of Sec.139(1) of the Act.

Accordingly, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to allow the same.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 21.12.2017

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →