M/S NEW VENTURES,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 322/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute the TDS liability in principle. However, due to the submission of additional evidence regarding one payee, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-verify this evidence. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed a disallowance of Rs. 13,14,370 made for failure to deduct TDS. The assessee argued that the payees had already paid taxes on the income received. Additional evidence was submitted regarding one payee, M/s. Pacific Advertising Marketing Agency.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. A secondary issue was whether the amended provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) should be applied retrospectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3),Section 201(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.03.2024Pronounced: 17.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2021-22/1042324980(1), dated 31.03.2022, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The learned CIT-(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

of Rs.13,14,370 made by the A.O without appreciating that the said disallowance was not justified on facts and in law.

2 ITA.No.322/PUN./2024

2.

The assessee submits that the payee had shown the amount received from appellant as income in the return of income furnished u/s 139 and also paid the taxes on it

and therefore, no disallowance was warranted in the present case in view of the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act.

3.

Without prejudice to the above grounds the assessee

submits that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of Rs.13,14,370 should be restricted to 30% only as against

100% because the amended provision made to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance (No 2) Act is curative in nature and should be applied retrospectively.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. Learned counsel is fair enough in not pressing for the assessee’s above extracted third substantive ground during the course of hearing. Rejected accordingly.

4. Next comes the sole substantive issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities action invoking sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.13,14,370/- on account of the assessee’s failure in not having deducted TDS. It is made clear that the assessee itself is indeed very fair enough in not disputing it’s TDS deduction liability in principle whilst making payments to M/s. Annamalai University, M/s. NIFD

3 ITA.No.322/PUN./2024 franchaise fee and M/s. Pacific Advertising Marketing Agency.

Learned counsel’s sole substantive plea during the course of hearing is only regarding the above stated third payee M/s.

Pacific Advertising Marketing Agency that the said latter recipient has already stand assessed as per the assessee’s additional evidence filed herein along with corresponding Form-26AS.

5.

The Revenue at this stage vehemently argued that the said payees assessment details are being submitted for the first time u/sec.254(2) proceedings which requires the Assessing Officer’s detailed factual verification.

6.

Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate that larger interests of justice would be met in case learned Assessing Officer re-verifies the assessee’s foregoing additional evidence so as to satisfy the rigor of sec.40(a)(ia) second proviso inserted in the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 already held to be retrospective being curative in light of PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 104 CCH 08 (Bom.)

Ordered accordingly.

7. Delay of 627 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

4 ITA.No.322/PUN./2024

7.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →