SHRI.VEERON VINCENT,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE, THRISSUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.256 & 257/
COCH./2019 for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015,
arise against the CIT(A)-III, Kochi, Kochi’s common order passed
in appeal no.ITA.153,154/TCR/CIT(A)-III/2017-18, dated
19.02.2019, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1971 (in short the "Act"); respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
2 ITA.Nos.256 & 257/COCH./2019 2. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the
assessee’s instant twin appeals ITA.Nos.256 and 257/
COCH./2019 raise an identical issue that both the learned lower
authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking
sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance(s) of Rs.1,59,45,344/- and
Rs.1,49,83,846/-; assessment year-wise, respectively, thereby
holding that he had failed to deduct TDS on the corresponding
contractual payments.
It is at this stage that learned counsel seeks to raise
two additional grounds as well. His first and foremost plea is that
the foregoing sec.194C TDS deduction provision itself does not
apply as the turnover threshold limit therein has remained
unsatisfied. We make it clear that the assessee is raising the
instant argument/ground for the first time before the tribunal
and therefore, it could not be restored back to the Assessing
Officer since the same would amount to violating the settled
position of law as per National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT
[1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) wherein their lordships’ hold that only
admitted facts could be examined for the purpose of entertaining
an additional ground than making detailed enquiries by the field
3 ITA.Nos.256 & 257/COCH./2019 authorities once again. We thus see no merit in the instant first
and foremost legal ground. Rejected accordingly.
Learned counsel next submits that an additional
ground/argument that we ought to restrict the impugned
sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance only @ 30% going by sec.40(a)(ia)
amendment by Finance Act 2/2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. We make
it clear that the assessment years before us are 2013-2014 and
2014-2015 only. Faced with this situation, learned counsel’s case
is that since the legislature has inserted the said proviso as a
curative method only; and therefore, it indeed carries
retrospective effect in light of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT
[1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC); CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., [2009]
319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT vs. VatikaTownship (P.)Ltd., [2014] 367
ITR 466 (SC). We see no merit in assessee’s instant legal
argument as per Shree Chowdhary Transport Co. vs. ITO [2020]
426 ITR 289 (SC) having rejected the very argument in the
concerned assessee’s case. That being the legal preposition
settled, we see no substance in learned counsel’s instant second
additional ground/argument. Declined accordingly.
We make it clear before parting that the assessee has
not pressed any argument or ground on merits whatsoever.
4 ITA.Nos.256 & 257/COCH./2019 4. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.256& 257/
COCH./2019 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this
common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.08.2024
Sd/- Sd/- [AMARJIT SINGH] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Cochin, Dated 23rd August, 2024
VBP/-
Copy to
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. The D.R. ITAT, Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File.
//By Order// //True copy//
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Cochin Bench, Cochin.
