9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.40 (a)(ia) on payments made to subcontractors Held that - Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1.4.2005. - If tax was deductible and was so deducted during the first eleven months of the previous year, that is, up to February, 2005, the disallowance was to be made if the assessee failed to pay it before 31st March, 2005 - provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1.4.2005 - assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and therefore the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted - in favour of assesee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-payment of TDS on payments to subcontractors. 2. Consideration of amended provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) effective from 1.4.2005. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Payment of TDS on Payments to Subcontractors: The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the non-payment of TDS on payments made to various subcontractors. The AO observed that the assessee had made payments to subcontractors, including Vaibhav Enterprises, Rapid Inexci Services P. Ltd., Vijay Yadav, Parshuram, Tejuali Shaikh, and Ganesh Ramsingh, but had failed to deposit the TDS within the stipulated time as per Section 200(1). Consequently, the AO disallowed these payments and added them back to the assessee's total income, amounting to Rs. 1,41,40,044. The assessee contended that these payments were advances and not final payments, and the TDS was deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Consideration of Amended Provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) Effective from 1.4.2005: The Tribunal examined the legislative history and amendments to Section 40(a)(ia). Initially, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, introduced Section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 1st April 2005, disallowing certain payments if TDS was not deducted or paid within the prescribed time. The Finance Act, 2008, and the Finance Act, 2010, further amended this provision, with the latter extending the time for depositing TDS up to the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in Bharati Shipyard Ltd., which held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010, was not retrospective. However, the Tribunal also considered the contrary decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in Virgin Creations, which held that the amendment was remedial and curative, thus retrospective from 1.4.2005. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court upheld this view, stating that the amendment aimed to remove unintended consequences and hardships. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, concluded that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, was retrospective from 1.4.2005. Consequently, if the TDS was deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made. Since the assessee had deposited the TDS within this timeframe, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted. Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, ordering the deletion of the impugned disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The decision was pronounced in the open court on 11th April 2012.
|
