Sanap Agroanimals Pvt.Ltd., Nashik V. Asstt.CIT, Cir-1, Nashik,

ITA 1192/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7699 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTHA
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ITA NO. 1192/PN/09 (ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07) M/S. SANAP AGROANIMALS PVT. LTD. SAKET NAGAR, NEAR K.J. MEHTA, HIGH SCHOOL, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK PAN NO. AAECS9159F .... APPELLANT VS. ACIT CIR-1, NASHIK . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. AMBASTHA ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK DATED 20/07/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS LD. AR FAIRLY MENTIONED THAT THE GROUND NO . 1 & 2 ARE SUPERFLUOUS AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PRESSED. ON CONSIDERING THE SA ME, WE PROCEED TO DISMISS THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED . FURTHER, REMAINS ONLY ONE GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION AND IT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE PROVISIONS OF S. 40 (A)(I-A) ALSO ARE NOT APPLICABL E SINCE THE PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE DURING THE YEAR ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIE W OF THAT SECTION. THE DISALLOWANCE RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF RS. 28,53,0 89/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I-A) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE DISALLOW ANCE BE DELETED. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND VIDE ITA NO. 1318/PN/2008, A.Y. 2005-06 AND MENTIONED THAT AO IN VOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITIONS WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE ALREADY PAID TO THE DEDUCTE ES WITHOUT MAKING T.D.S DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. AS PER THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL, THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE PAYMENTS STILL PENDING PAYABLE TO THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS. SINCE THE AMOUNTS A RE ALREADY PAID, CONSIDERING ITA NO. 1192/PN/09 A.Y 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR V IDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., 123 TTJ (JP) 888, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE INAPPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENTS ALREADY PAID. THE SAID DECISION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND (S UPRA). THE CONCLUSION PORTION OF THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VI DYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., (SUPRA) AND THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF DECISION OF PUN E BENCH IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND ( SUPRA ) ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS: A. CONCLUSION PORTION OF THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD ., (SUPRA): ..THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS COULD OT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA); PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE ALSO FOR THE R EASON THAT THEY APPLY ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE IE DUE WHEREAS THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT. B. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 3 HELD AS UNDER : 3. IN THIS BACKGROUND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN AS SESSEES CASE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PAID SO PROVISIONS OF S EC. 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE REASONS THAT WAS APPLIED ONLY WH EN AMOUNT IS PAYABLE. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. ON BEHALF OF REVENUE THE FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO THE CONCUR WITH THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DISALLOWED THE A MOUNT OF RS. 40,000/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) B ECAUSE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAYABLE BUT ALREADY PAID . 3. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE ALREADY PAID. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF CASE AND THE EXISTING BINDING COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HAVE B OUND TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT IE JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ( SUPRA ) AND DECISION OF PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAH CHARULATA MILIND ( SUPRA ). CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO BE REVERSED FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, RELEVANT GROU ND (S) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE NOT PRESSE D AND GROUND NO. 4 IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV) (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 12 TH JANUARY, 2011 R ITA NO. 1192/PN/09 A.Y 2006-07 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. ACIT, CIR-1, NASHIK 3. CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. CIT-I, NASHIK 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE