Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
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.
3. 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