M/s Punjab State Cooperative Federation of Housing Building Societies Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 834/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60854 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.834/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE FEDERATION VS. THE D.C. I.T., OF HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD., CIRCLE 4(1) , SCO 150-152, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAAAT0759L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.R.SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.05.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DA TED 15.06.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHEL D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH IS BAD IN LAW AN D IS BEYOND ALL THE CANNONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHEL D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DIS ALLOWING RS. 1,01,33,9537- U/S 40(A)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT B EING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ACQUISITION OF I TS CAPITAL ASSET MORE SO WHEN THE SAME HAS BEEN ADJUSTED WITHIN 3 MO NTHS AND TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED BEFORE THE FILING OF TH E RETURN IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE SET-ASIDE. 2 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOK ING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF T AX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEM BER COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES WITHIN THE STATE OF PUNJAB. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSES IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB WHICH ARE ALLOTTED IN FAVOUR OF PRIMARY COOPERATIVE HOUSI NG SOCIETIES UNDER THE SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB FROM TIME TO TIME. THE LANDS FOR THE SAID PROJECT ARE ALLOTTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJ AB AND THE PLANS ARE ALSO APPROVED BY THEM. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.1,21,75,828/- ON 22.2.2008 T O M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS. AS PER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY 75% OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT HAD TO BE PROCURED AND STORED. AS PER THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPLANATION FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS AS UNDER : IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE SAID CLAUSE THE ABOVE NOTE D ASSESSEE AT PAID AND/ADVANCE OF RS. 50,61,506.25 PAISE VIDE CH. NO. 984219 DATED 22.02.20083 THE DETAILS OF THE MATERIAL AGAIN ST WHICH ADVANCE HAS BEEN MADE ARE BEING ENCLOSED FOR YOUR P ERUSAL AND RECORD. SIMILARLY [ANOTHER ADVANCE ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 22.02.2008 AMOUNTING TO RS. 71,14,322.25 PAISE WAS PAID TO M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS LUDHIANA VIDE CH. NO. 984218 DATED 22.02.2008. THE DETAILS OF THE MATERIAL AGAINST WHICH ADVANCE H AS BEEN MADE ARE BEING ENCLOSED FOR YOUR PERUSAL AND RECORD. THE SE ADVANCES WERE PAID FOR PROJECT AT LUDHIANA AND AMRITSAR RES PECTIVELY SINCE THESE ADVANCES WERE PAID AT THE FAG AND OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS SUCH THESE ADVANCES WERE ADJUSTED OUT OF THE 3 PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CONTRACTORS AGAINST THE WORK D ONE ON 18.03.2008 AT RS. 55,84,598.35 PAISE BEING THE GROS S VALUE OF THE BILL OUT OF WHICH ADVANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,41,87 57- HAS BEEN ADJUSTED ON WHICH TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,26,5477- H AS BEEN DEDUCTED, ON 02.05.2008 AT RS. 17,21,787.50 PAISE, ON 09.06.2008 AT RS. 23,98,9507-, ON 08.07.2008 AT RS. 37,93,612.50 PAISE. IN RESPECT OF AMRITSAR PROJECT AND RS. 55,26,8867- ON 02.05.20 08 IN RESPECT OF LUDHIANA PROJECT AM ALSO ENCLOSING HEREWITH PHOTOCO PIES OF THE BILLS PAID ON 02.05.2008 HHOWING THE DEDUCTION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX AT RS. 1,79,6377- ON THE GROSS VALUE OF THE BILL AT RS. 79,27,5117-, A PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILL FOR RS. 1,01,9 5,1457- PAID ON 09.06.2008 OUT OF WHICH INCOME TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,31,0227- HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE GROSS VALUE OF THE BILL, A PHOTOCOPY OF THE BILL AND VOUCHERS FOR RS. 89,30,960.50 PAISE BEING THE VALUE OUT OF WHICH RS. 1,38,0697- IN RESPECT OF THE AMRITSAR PRO JECT I.E. RS. 50,61,506.25 PAISE. FURTHER I AM ALSO ENCLOSING A C OPY OF THE BILL AND OTHER CONNECTED DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF LUDHIAN A PROJECT WHEREBY THE ADVANCE OF RS. 55,26,886.70 PAISE HAS B EEN ADJUSTED OUT OF THE GROSS AMOUNT OF THE BILL AT RS. 1,37,30, 122.70 PAISE AGAINST WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT RS. 3,11,125 7- ON THE GROSS VALUE OF THE BILL. IT MAY HOWEVER BE SUBMITTED HERE THAT AFTER SEEKING THE LEGAL ADVICE IN THIS BEHALF THE ABOVE NOTED ASS ESSEE DEDUCTED TDS AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT ONLY I.E. IN THE CASE OF SECURED ADVANCES AT THE TIME OF EXTENDING THE ADVANCE HOWEVER THE SA ME WAS ADJUSTED WHILE DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF MA KING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILL. 5. THE TDS DEDUCTED ON THE SAID PAYMENT WAS DEPOSIT ED ON OR BEFORE 8.7.2008 I.E. BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS 30.9.2008. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSES SMENT HAD ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT MADE AT RS.20,41, 875/- ON 18.3.2010 AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,01,33,953/- FOR NON D EDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(I A) OF THE ACT. 4 7. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND CONSEQUENT DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE SPE CIAL BENCH OF VISHAKHAPATNAM REPORTED IN ACIT VS. MERILYN SHIPPIN G & TRANSPORTS[140 TTJ 1(SB)(VISHAKHAPATNAM)]. 9. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE AOF EXPENSES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS.1,21,75,828/- TO M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS ON 22.2. 2008. THE SAID PAYMENT AS PER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTY WAS T O BE ADJUSTED ON A LATER DATE AND THE SAME WAS ADJUSTED. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE SAID PARTY IN VIEW OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR MAKING ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL REQUISITIONED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT U NDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY 75% OF THE AMOU NT OF THE BILL IN ADVANCE AND WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN TOTAL THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE DEDUCED THE TDS AND DEPOSITED THE SAME. THE T ABULATED DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PAYMENTS DUE FROM T HE ASSESSEE AND THE CONSEQUENT DEDUCTION ON TDS ARE AS UNDER: 5 DATE OF PAYMENT/ ADJUSTME NTOF ADVANCE GROSS VALUE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT OF ADVANCE ADJUSTED TDS ON AMOUNT ADJUSTED DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TDS 02.05.2008 79,27,511.0 0 17,21,787.5 0 1,79,637.0 0 02.05.2008 09.O6.2008 1,01,95,145.0 0 23,98,950.0 0 2,31,022.0 0 11.06.2008 08.07.2008 89,30,960.5 0 37,93,612.5 0 1,38,069.0 0 09.07.2008 02.O5.2OO 8 1,37,30,122.7 0 50,61,506.2 5 3,11,125.0 0 02.05.2008 11. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID DETAILS AND THE E XPLANATION FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS REFERRED TO B Y US IN PARAS HEREINABOVE REFLECT THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE MADE PAYME NT OF RS.1,21,75,828/- ON 22.2.2008 I.E. AT THE FAG OF TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2007- 08 AND THE SAID ADVANCE WAS ADJUSTED IN THE MONTHS OF THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND ONCE THE TOTAL BILL WAS RAISED THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE S AID TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FILING OF RETURN I. E. BEFORE 8.7.2008, WHEREAS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS DUE TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE 30.9.2008. 12. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHE R IN VIEW OF THE NON DEDUCTION OF TAX OUT OF THE ADVANCE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL IS HIT BY THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 13. SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IN C ASE WHERE ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, RENT, ROYALTY, F EES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE PAYABLE TO A RE SIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTACTORS, BEING RE SIDENT, ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND W HERE SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN P AID, THEN SUCH AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFES SION. 6 14. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTIBILITY OF EXPE NDITURE WHERE THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR AND NOTHING I S OUTSTANDING AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, WAS CONSIDERED AND THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF VISHAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. MERILYN SHIPPIN G & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA) HAVE LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN CASES WHERE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN PAID, THEN EVEN WHERE NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDU CTED AT SOURCE OR AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN PAID, THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE MAJORITY VIEW OF T HE BENCH AS PER PARA 12 OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2012 IS AS UNDER: 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, MATERIALS PL ACED BEFORE US, ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ON COMP ARISON BETWEEN THE PROPOSED AND ENACTED PROVISION, THE ONL Y CONCLUSION WHICH I CAN REACH IS THAT THE LEGISLATUR E CONSCIOUSLY REPLACED THE WORDS 'AMOUNTS CREDITED OR PAID' WITH THE WORD 'PAYABLE' IN THE FINAL ENACTMENT. BY CHANGING THE WORDS FROM 'CREDITED' OR 'PAID' TO 'PAYABLE', T HE LEGISLATIVE INTENT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT ONLY OUTSTANDING AM OUNTS OR THE PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES LIABLE FOR TDS UNDER CHAPTE R XVII-B OF THE ACT IS SOUGHT TO BE DISALLOWED IN THE EVENT THE RE IS A DEFAULT IN FOLLOWING THE OBLIGATIONS CASTED UPON THE ASSESS EE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B OF THE ACT. I AGREE WITH THE ARGUMEN TS MADE BY ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER COUNSELS FOR TH E INTERVENES THAT WHILE INTERPRETING THE WORD 'PAYABL E' IN THIS PROVISION, THE WORD OF A STATUTE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS NATURAL, ORDINARY OR POPULAR SENSE AND CONSTRUED ACCORDING T O ITS GRAMMATICAL MEANING. ACCORDING TO ME, SUCH CONSTRUC TION WOULD NOT LEAD TO ABSURDITY BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHIN G IN THIS CONTEXT OR IN THE OBJECT OF THIS STATUTE TO SUGGEST TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION THAT T HE WORDS OF A STATUTE MUST BE PRIMA FACIE GIVEN THEIR ORDINARY ME ANING, WHEN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE CLEAR, PLAIN AND UNAMB IGUOUS THEN THE COURTS ARE BOUND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THAT MEANING . THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION REALLY MEANS THAT THERE SHOU LD BE NO INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE, RATHER IN OTHER WORD S, WE SHOULD READ THE STATUTE AS IT IS WITHOUT DOING ANY VIOLENC E TO THE LANGUAGE. IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE BEFORE US, THE WOR D 'PAYABLE' USED IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS TO BE ASSIG NED STRICT INTERPRETATION, IN VIEW OF THE OBJECT OF LEGISLATIO N, WHICH IS INTENDED FROM THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WORDS IN THE P ROPOSED AND ENACTED PROVISION FROM THE WORDS 'AMOUNT CREDITED O R PAID' TO 'PAYABLE'. HENCE, IN MY VIEW, MY ANSWER TO THE QUES TION REFERRED BY HON'BLE PRESIDENT TO THE SPECIAL BENCH IS AS UND ER: 7 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE PAYABLE AS ON THE DATE 31 ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR AND IT CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DI SALLOW WHICH HAD BEEN ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR, WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS. 15. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE SPECIAL B ENCH (SUPRA), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE AS SESSEE. APPLYING THE ABOVE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY SPECIAL BENCH IN ACIT VS. MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA) TO THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE, WHERE THE AMOUNT TOTALING RS.1,21,75,828/- HAS BEEN PAID TO M /S DEEPAK BUILDERS, CONTRACTOR DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITSE LF, MERE NON-DEPOSIT OF TDS DEDUCTED THEREON DOES NOT MERIT ANY DISALLOW ANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. FURTHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 WHEREIN THE PROVIS O HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED. EARLIER PROVISO SUBSTITUTED BY THE FI NANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 PROVIDED THAT WH ERE IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM, TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR O R HAS BEEN DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BUT PAI D AFTER THE SAID DUE DATE OR DEDUCTED DURING ANY OTHER MONTH OF THE PREV IOUS YEAR BUT PAID AFTER THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DEDUCTION O F SAID SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R IN WHICH SUCH TAX HAD BEEN PAID. THE PROVISO AS SUBSTITUTED BY FINAN CE ACT, 2010 PROVIDES THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM, WHERE TAX HAS BEEN DEDU CTED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR DEDUCTED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEA R BUT PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT , SUCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING INCOME OF THE P REVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID; IMPLYING THEREBY THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX AND DEPOSITED THE SAID TAX NOT WITHIN DUE DATE BUT 8 BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDE R SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, SUCH SUM IS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION TO TH E ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE AND DEPOSITED. 17. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS .BHARTI SHIPYARD LIMITED (2011) 132 ITD 53 (MUMBAI) HAD HEL D THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 TO PROVI SO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTED PROVISO WAS TO BE APPLIED W.E.F. 1.4.2010 AND WAS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE . HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. VIRGIN CREAT IONS (SUPRA) HAVE HELD THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT TO PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 18. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO CONTRACTOR TOTALING RS.1,21,75,828/- WHICH WAS D EPOSITED BEFORE 8.7.2008. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 30.09.2008. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. VIRGIN CREATIONS (SUPRA) AND VARIO US BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL WE HOLD THAT ONCE THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTE D AND DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN O F INCOME, THERE IS NO MERIT IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO S UCH TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON BOTH THE COUNT S. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING 9 OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,0 1,33,953/-. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS A LLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH