2015 (10) TMI 1413 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C and 194J and deposit the same with the Government within the prescribed time under section 200 - Held that - The Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA has held that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee s tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer . Therefore, the Tribunal held that insertion of second proviso is a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature. As both the lower authorities have not looked into the matter from this angle, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the AO for ajudication of the issue afresh in light of the discussion made hereinabove, after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for failure to deduct TDS
- Interpretation of the second proviso under section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012
- Applicability of the second proviso retrospectively
- Judicial interpretation of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) prior to the insertion of the second proviso

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Tribunal initially restricted the disallowance to a specific amount, which was later challenged by the Revenue in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The High Court held that the decision of a Special Bench did not lay down the correct law, leading to the remand of the matter for fresh consideration of the disallowance issue.

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for expenditure as the assessee failed to deduct TDS under sections 194C and 194J of the Act. The disallowance amount was reduced by the CIT(A) based on the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted the AO's disallowance and the subsequent reduction by the CIT(A) under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

3. The Tribunal referred to the second proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which deemed the assessee to have deducted and paid tax on a sum if certain conditions were met. Citing a judgment by the Agra Bench, it highlighted that the second proviso aimed to rectify unintended consequences of the earlier provisions and should be treated as retrospective. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders for fresh consideration in light of this discussion.

4. Given the retrospective nature of the second proviso and the need to reevaluate the disallowance issue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the matter to be reconsidered by the AO with proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the legal interpretations made, and the subsequent directions given by the Tribunal for further proceedings.