K.SELVARAGHAVAN, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-20(5), CHENNAI

ITA 3459/CHNY/2019

AI Insights

The case involves K. Selvaraghavan, a film producer, distributor, and director, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai, which confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 18,02,305. This amount was initially disallowed in the assessment year 2010-11 for non-deduction of TDS but was later claimed in the assessment year 2012-13 after TDS was paid. The primary legal contention was whether the revised return filed within the prescribed time limit under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be accepted despite the original return being filed belatedly. The Tribunal concluded that the revised return should be considered, allowing the deduction claimed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135075 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 139(5)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी/एस एम सी’’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C/SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर सह, उपा य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3459/Chny/2019 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Selvaraghavan, Old No.286, New No.200, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-20(5), Chennai. [PAN: ASIPS-9835-M] ( अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai [CIT(A)] in ITA No.119/CIT(A)-14/2015-16 dated 05-11-2019. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-20(5), Chennai for the relevant A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 27.03.2018 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). ITA No.3459/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by A.O of Rs. 18,02,305/- being amount on which TDS was remitted during the year under consideration and claimed to have been allowed under the first proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Film Producer, Distributor and Director. The assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 91,31,357/- during A.Y 2010-11, on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee and hence, in that year disallowed the same. Out of the above, disallowance made by A.O for want to TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, a sum of Rs. 18,02,305/- being professional fee/contract amount, on which the assessee now paid TDS in A.Y 2012-13 i.e., the relevant Assessment Year and claimed in the revised return of income filed on 30.03.2013 i.e., within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. The A.O disallowed the claim for the reason that the original return was filed belatedly and hence, revised return cannot be accepted. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the A.O. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.3459/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: 4. I noted the facts that the assessee initially claimed an expenditure of Rs. 91,31,357/-, which was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in A.Y 2010-11 for non deduction of TDS. Out of the above, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 18,02,305/- being professional fee and contract work. On which, the assessee paid TDS in this year and claimed this expenditure because it was disallowed in A.Y 2010-11. Now, in view of the second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the amount has to be allowed in which year the assessee has actually remitted the amount of TDS. Hence, I find that the assessee has genuine case and even during assessment proceedings this information was available with the A.O because the assessee filed revised return and in revised return he has filed all the details before completion of assessment. Even though, the A.O claimed that original return filed was not in time, without considering the revised return, the A.O while completing assessment could have taken this information on record and could have allowed the claim of deduction. In view of the above, I direct the A.O to delete the addition and allow the appeal claimed by the assessee. ITA No.3459/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08 th of March, 2023. Sd/- (महावीर िसंह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा / Vice President चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 08-03-2023 EDN/- आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु /CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF