2012 (6) TMI 836 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C(2) on the ground that the assessee is an individual? - Held that - We are of the view that this appeal does not require admission for hearing as the applicability of law involved herein is admittedly settled. It is admitted position that the matter relates to the assessment year 2006-07, whereas Section 194C(1) has been made applicable to the individual assessee with effect from 1.6.2007. There is no dispute that the respondent is an individual assessee. Considering the position of the law, the learned Tribunal has consistently held that Section 194C(1) cannot be made applicable for the assessment year 2006- 07.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C(2) on the ground that the assessee is an individual.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessee is an individual despite the applicability of Section 194C(1) to an individual from 1.6.2007, contrary to the assessment year 2006-07.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the appeal in relation to the Assessment Year 2006-07 concerning the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C(2) on the ground that the assessee is an individual. The Court noted that Section 194C(1) was made applicable to individual assesses from 1.6.2007, which was after the relevant assessment year. It was undisputed that the respondent was an individual assessee. The Court observed that the learned Tribunal consistently held that Section 194C(1) cannot be applied for the assessment year 2006-07. Referring to a similar case, the Court mentioned the decision in Ajay Rawla vs. DCIT, where the Tribunal had held the same. The Court found no reason to differ from the Tribunal's decision based on settled law and dismissed the appeal.

2. The second issue revolved around whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessee as an individual despite the applicability of Section 194C(1) to individuals from 1.6.2007, which was after the relevant assessment year. The Court reiterated that the respondent was indeed an individual assessee for the assessment year 2006-07. The Court highlighted the Tribunal's consistent stance that Section 194C(1) could not be applied for that assessment year. Citing a previous case, the Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was in line with established law. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal after considering the issues regarding the applicability of Section 194C(1) to individual assesses for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on settled law and previous judgments, emphasizing that the provision could not be retrospectively applied to the relevant assessment year.