M/s Runaway Developers, Guna V. J.C.I.T., Range-3, Gwalior

ITA 470/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 47020314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WASEEM ARSH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA SHARMA; MANUJ SHARMA S
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.470/AGRA/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. RUNWAY DEVELOPERS, VS. ADDL.C.I.T., 15, PANCHYAT BHAWAN, RANGE-3, GWALIOR (M.P.) A.B. ROAD, GUNA (M.P.) (PAN AAGFR 7704 J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJENDR A SHARMA & SHRI MANUJ SHARMA, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSH AD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2014 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06, ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND:- 2. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,42,09,149/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF I.T. ACT WHICH WA S ACTUALLY PAID TO THE SUB CONTRACTOR. FURTHER THE A .O. FAILED IN GIVING FINDING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME I N NEXT YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING RS.33730882/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITIO N. ITA NO.470/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 2 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 1,421 DAYS BUT VIDE DOCKET ORDER DATED 22 ND MAY 2013, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. WE ACCORDINGLY TAK E UP THE MATTER FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. BRIEFLY, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE TH IS. THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, IT WAS NOTICED T HAT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TAX DEDUCTIONS AT SOURCE, THE TDS WAS NOT DEPOSITED WIT H TIME LIMIT ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 200(1) OF THE ACT AND WITHIN THE YEAR. IT W AS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAU SE THAT THE RELEVANT PAYMENTS, WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIONS, AGGREGATING TO RS .3,42,09,149/- NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT THE TDS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED WAS REJECTED, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED T O DISALLOW RS.3,42,09,149/- BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY TH IS AMOUNT OF RS.3,42,09,149/- BE NOT DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TDS COULD BE DEPOSITED UPTO 31.05.2005, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE, AND THAT NO AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWA BLE U/S 40(A)(IA). THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. SINCE T HE TDS WAS NOT DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 200( 1) OF THE I.T. ACT, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3,42,09,149/- IS, THEREFORE, DISALLOWE D U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND, THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ARE B EING INITIATED. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS STILL NOT SATI SFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. ITA NO.470/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 3 6. WE HAVE NOTED THAT LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRL Y AGREE THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE TDS IN QUESTION HAS BEEN ADMIT TEDLY DEPOSITED WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, AND AS FAIRLY AGREED TO BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES- EVEN AS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, NEVERTHELESS, VEHEMENTLY RELIES UPON THE STAND OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. NARESH KUM AR (262 CTR 389), CIT VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR (260 CTR 1139) AND CIT VS. VIRGIN CR EATIONS (HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS UNREPORTED JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2011 I N ITA NO.302 OF 2011). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HONBL E HIGH COURTS, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDIN GLY. NO OTHER GRIEVANCE WAS PRESSED BEFORE US. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2014) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER DATE: 30 TH APRIL, 2014 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY