9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1493 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) - No tax deducted at source on the expenditure of job work - time of depositing TDS before the due date of filing return - Held that - From going through the judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary (2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) and the appellate order of ld. CIT(A) and various other judicial pronouncements it is now settled issue that amendment u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is only an amendment in continuation of earlier amendment made in 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005 and amendment in the year 2010 has been brought to cure the defect so that benefit of the extended time of depositing TDS before the due date of filing return is given to the assessee. Respectfully following the judgment above we find that facts of the assessee are squarely covered by this judgment and as observed by ld. CIT(A) in a right perspective, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of ?2,20,93,203/- made on account of job work expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Retrospective application of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Disallowance of Job Work Expenses The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which deleted the disallowance of ?2,20,93,203/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The AO had made this disallowance on the grounds that the tax deducted at source (TDS) on job work expenses was not deposited within the prescribed time limit under Section 200(1) of the Act. The assessee argued that the TDS for the first three quarters was deducted and deposited before the close of the financial year, and the remaining TDS was paid before the due date of filing the return as per Section 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, observing that the TDS amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The CIT(A) relied on the judgments of the Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.K. Construction Company and the Hon. Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations, which held that if TDS is deposited before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. Issue 2: Retrospective Application of the Amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) The core issue was whether the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which allowed additional time up to the due date of filing the return for depositing TDS, was retrospective from the date of insertion of the provision, i.e., 1st April 2005. The Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Omprakash R. Chaudhary held that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective in nature. The court observed that the amendment was curative and intended to bring the law in parity by allowing extended time for depositing TDS deducted throughout the year until the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon. Gujarat High Court, concluded that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1st April 2005. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the disallowance made by the AO, as the TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1st April 2005. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of ?2,20,93,203/- on account of job work expenses, as the TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 23rd December, 2016.
|
