Asstt. Commissioner of Incme Tax-4, Kanpur V. Shri Praveen Manga., Kanpur

ITA 44/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3338 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 44 /LKW/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 A.C.I.T. - 4, VS. SHRI PRAVEEN MANGA, KANPUR. FLAT NO. 19, ADHARSHILA APARTMENT, 7/37, TILAK NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ABJPM752R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. RANU BISWAS, D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. JAIN, F.C.A. SHRI SWARAN SINGH, F.C.A. DATE OF HEARIN G : 30 /0 5 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :07/06/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 18,74,575/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I. T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED WAS NOT DEPOSITED ON 2 OR BEFORE 31/03/2009 BUT WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIRGIN CREATIONS IN I.T.A. NO. 302 OF 2011 IN WHICH THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD HAVING RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS PVT. LTD. AND ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WHICH HAS INSERTED THE REMEDY TO MAKE THE PROVISION WORKABLE, REQUIRES TO BE TREATED WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION SO THAT REASONABLE DEDUCTION CAN BE GIVEN TO THE SECTION AS WELL. BESIDES , THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PIYUSH C. MEHTA VS. ACIT , I.T.A. NO.1321/MUM/2009, ALPHA PROJECTS SOLCIETY (P) LTD. VS D CIT I.T.A. NO.2869/AHD/2011 AND SURESHBHAI G. PATEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER I.T.A. NO.673/AHJD/2010 HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHO HAS FO LLOWED THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF I.T.A.T. AND ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, 3 THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE SAME. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/06/2013 ) SD/. SD/. ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07/06/2013 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR