2017 (7) TMI 1089 - HC - Income Tax

Section 40(a)(ia) applicability on the amount payable and not on the amount actually paid - rectification of mistake - Held that - Supreme Court decision in the case M/s Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2017 (5) TMI 242 - SUPREME COURT held that section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 covered not only these cases where the amounts were payable but also those where it was paid. Consequently whichever way the matter is looked at the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.5.2013.
2. Interpretation of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of section 40 (a) (ia) on the amount payable and the amount actually paid.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The High Court had previously delivered a decision in ITA No. 03/2013 concerning the Assessee for the Assessment year 2009-10. The present appeal was filed against the order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the Tribunal, which was the subject of a rectification application that led to the order being recalled. The Court noted that the rectification had made the present appeal in fructuous. Despite the appellant's counsel's insistence that the appeal still survived, the Court disagreed. The Court highlighted that the question framed in the appeal regarding the applicability of section 40 (a) (ia) had already been decided in another case on the same day. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in M/s Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which clarified that section 40 (a) (ia) covered cases where amounts were payable as well as those where they were paid. Consequently, the Court concluded that the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

2. The key issue in this judgment was the interpretation of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income Tax had settled the matter by confirming that section 40 (a) (ia) applied not only to amounts payable but also to amounts actually paid. This interpretation was crucial in determining the outcome of the present appeal and was a significant factor in the Court's decision to dismiss the appeal.

3. The Court specifically addressed the question of whether section 40 (a) (ia) applied only to the amount payable or also to the amount actually paid. By referencing the Supreme Court decision and its interpretation of the provision, the Court clarified that the scope of section 40 (a) (ia) encompassed both scenarios. This clarification was pivotal in the Court's reasoning for dismissing the appeal, as it established that the provision applied broadly to cover both payable and paid amounts. The Court's analysis highlighted the importance of understanding the applicability of tax provisions in different payment scenarios and how judicial interpretations could impact the outcomes of tax-related disputes.