M/s. Jagabandhu Mohanty, Cuttack V. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

ITA 85/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7547 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B N DASH
• Assessee Lawyers: P K JESTHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.85/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 M/S. JAGABADHU MOHANTY, SIKHARPUR, CUTTACK VS. ITO, WARD 1 (1), CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO. (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.K.JESTHI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI B.N.DASH , DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 /11 / 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 /11 / 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK, DATED 25.1.2016 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,90,000/ - MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE 2 ITA NO.85/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TDS OF RS. 6604/ - ON 31.3.2006 FROM RS.4,90,500/ - PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE SAME EITHER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2006 OR WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME U/S.200(1) OF THE ACT ON OR BEF ORE 31.5.2006. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR RS .4,90,500/ - U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE LD CIT(A). 4. THE CONTENTION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF TDS OF RS.6604/ - WAS DEPOSITED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON 20.10.2006, WHICH W AS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH EXPIRES ON 31.10.2006 AND HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,90,500/ - WAS WARRANTED. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRATIBHA JV VS DCIT (ITA NO.39213/MUM/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09) ORDER DATED 25.9.2013, WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 TO THE EFFECT THAT IF TDS DEDUCT ED FROM THE PAYMENT WAS DEPOSITED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE AND WILL APPLY RETROSPE CTIVELY W.E.F. 1.4.2005. AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TDS OF RS.6604/ - WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20.10.2006 FROM PAYMENT OF RS.4,90,500/ - , WHICH WAS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME 3 ITA NO.85/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT ON 31.10.2006 , THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRATIBHA JV(SUPRA), I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,90,500/ - MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW GROUND OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 6 /11 /2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 16 /11 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : M/S. JAGABADHU MOHANTY, SIKHARPUR, CUTTACK 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 1 (1), CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A) , CUTTACK 4. CIT , CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//