ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI vs. ALOK K. SHARMA, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. None appeared on behalf of assessee. Therefore the appeal has been decided exparte on the basis of the argument of the learned Departmental Representative and material on record.

2.2 After going through the material on record we find that assessee has though deducted TDS late on payment of rent and consultancy charged of `9,15,400/- but paid the same to government account. Assessee has paid the rent and consultancy charges during the financial year and there was no amount was payable or outstanding as on 31st March, 2009. Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) applies to the Shri Alok K. Sharma amount which is payable as on 31st March and not on the amount paid during the year. Therefore no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be made because the word “payable” used in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by the strict interpretation, section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the previous year without deducting tax at source. This reasoned finding of the CIT(A) need no interference from our side. We uphold the same.