2015 (4) TMI 883 - HC - Income Tax

Legality of allowing the claim for deduction by way of filing revised statement of income during the assessment proceedings - revenue contended that since the assessee has not claimed the deduction in its original return, the assessee cannot claim any benefit which the assessee has forgotten to claim while filing the return - Held that - It is found that TDS on the alleged payment was deposited on 19.05.2007 i.e. in the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the AY under consideration. Even by the pre amendment provision of section 40(a)(ia), the said payment was allowable in the year of payment of TDS i.e. the year under consideration. Even if no revised statement of income was filed , the claim was allowable as the deduction has been claimed on the payment of TDS . We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) - Appeal of revenue dismissed. Allowability of delayed payment of PF - Amendment to section 43B - Held that - Relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT and Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd 2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the amendments to the section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April 2004 were retrospective in nature and would operate from 1st April 1988 thus, the Tribunal was fully justified in deleting the addition on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund of employees' contribution thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging Tribunal's order for assessment year 2008-09; Claimed deduction in revised statement of income; Assessing Officer's denial of deduction; Commissioner's findings; Revision in deduction claim; Legal principles interpretation; Substantial questions of law; Precedents cited; Second question on judgments by Supreme Court and High Court; Conclusion against Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The High Court heard an appeal by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal concerned two Income Tax Appeal Nos. 5283/Mum/2011 and 5354/Mum/2011. The Appellant argued that the questions raised were substantial questions of law arising from the Tribunal's orders and findings.

2. The first issue revolved around the deduction claimed in a revised statement of income. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction as it was not claimed in the original return. The Commissioner disagreed with the Assessing Officer's view. However, the Tribunal did not express any opinion on the Commissioner's conclusions, leading to a debate on the legality of the deduction claim.

3. The Appellant contended that the revision in the deduction claim was justified, citing the reasons for the discrepancy in figures between the original and revised statements. The Commissioner found the revision to be in line with the legal amendments and supported by judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court.

4. The High Court analyzed the facts and legal principles involved, concluding that the revision in the deduction claim was permissible and not to be confused with a revised return of income. The Tribunal's reasoning aligned with legal principles and precedents, dismissing the hyper-technical view taken by the Assessing Officer.

5. Regarding the second question raised, the High Court referred to judgments by the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the High Court, which concluded the issue against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. Consequently, both questions were deemed not substantial questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.