Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.51 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/S VISHWAS BUILDERS VISHWAS CROWN NEAR COCHIN BAKERY KANKANADY MANGALORE – 575 002 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. ABDUL RAUF PUTTIGE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF SRI.E.M. SHAFI
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV. FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R.BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR NANDI GUDDA ROAD ATTAVARA, MANGALURU – 575 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.10.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.132/BANG/2011, FOR THE
2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BEARING ITA NO.132/B/2011 DATED 19.10.2011 ANNEXURE-‘A’, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed by the assesee is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.132/Bang/2011 (Annexure – A).
The learned advocates appearing for the parties in unison would fairly submit that issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in 404 ITR page 654 and same has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.422/2012 disposed of on 29.06.2020.
This appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not canceling the order under Section 263 when condition precedent for invoking 263 was absent?
3 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Section 40 (a) (ia) as amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1st April 2010 do not have retrospective effect?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was possible when the appellant failed to deduct and remit tax on contract and professional charges payable within due date in the respective months even when the provision for deduction was made in the month of March and remitted to Government account before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act?
In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, issue involved in this appeal being no more res integra in the light of law declared by the Apex Court referred to supra, this appeal stands disposed of accordingly by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-