Shri Murli Manohar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Ratnagiri V. ACIT, Ratnagiri

ITA 177/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0874 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: TM
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJU AJWANI
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SINGLE MEMBER CASE : PUNE BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV (JM) ITA NO. 177/PN/2010 (A.Y: 2005-06) SHRI MURLI MANOHAR NAGARI SAHA. PAT SANSTHA LTD. ANANT KANHERE CHOWK, TAL. KHED, DIST. RATNAGIRI PAN AAAAS5607K .. APPELLANT V. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI RANGE, RATNAGIRI . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : MS. MANJU AJWANI ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - , KOLHAPUR DATED 27.11.2009 FOR T HE A.Y. 2005-06 ON THE POINT OF DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). 2. THE A.O HAS DISALLOWED RS. 1,48,868/- BY INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF AUDIT FEE PA ID TO GOVT. TAX AUDIT, DGC AUDIT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. THE LEARNED A.R. POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF JAIPUR A BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.177/PN/2010 SHRI MURLI MANOHAR NAGARI SAHA. PAT SANSTHA LTD., A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. V/S. D CIT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) APP LY ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE AND NOT WHERE THE EXPENDITURE IS PAID. THE WORD PAYABLE IS NOT DEFINED BUT THE WORD PAID IS DE FINED IN SEC. 43(2) TO MEAN ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED. HENCE, BY IMPLICAT ION THE WORD PAYABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE PAID. IN CASE, THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLI CABLE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE UNDISPUTED STAND OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, SO FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF JAYPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE WORD PAYABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE PAID AND ONCE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY MADE THE PAYM ENT OF INTEREST IN QUESTION, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) IS NOT A PPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION IS QUASHED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2010. SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 21ST MAY, 2010 US ITA NO.177/PN/2010 SHRI MURLI MANOHAR NAGARI SAHA. PAT SANSTHA LTD., A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT I /II KOLHAPUR, CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. THE D.R. SMC BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE