9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant to the assessment year and paid the same in to the Central Government Account before the due date of filing of return of income, the expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act - There is no dispute regarding the payment of TDS amount in to the Central Government account before the due date of filing the return of income of the assessee. Being so, exercising the power u/s. 263 of the Act by the CIT on this issue is not justified – Decided in favor of Assessee. - ITA No. 894/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Inturi Rama Rao For the Respondent : Sri D. Sudhakara Rao ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, AM:- This appeal by the assessee is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Hyderabad direction to the Assessing Officer to modify the order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 23rd December, 2009 by disallowing the amount of Rs. 79,03,201 is to be quashed. 3. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Sri Madineni Mohan vs. ITO, Suryapet in ITA No. 762/Hyd/2012 order dated 31.5.2013. While deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal observed as follows: "7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has deposited the TDS amount on 29-9- 2005 as the Assessing Officer himself has mentioned this fact in the assessment order. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee has deposited TDS amount before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations (supra) and decisions of different benches of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we hold that the assessee having deposited TDS amount before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions contained u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 1,37,56,960/-." 4. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the order of the CIT. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the same issue came bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. J.K. Construction Co. in Tax Appeal No. 706 of 2010 held as follows: "Plainly speaking, assessee had to make deduction before 31st March of the year in question and as long as such amounts were deposited before last date of filing of the return, requirements of law would be fulfilled. It was on this basis that Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee committed no wrong and was, therefore, entitled to seek deduction of Rs. 32,94,149/- from the income which amount the assessee had deducted from payments of contractors and had also deposited with Revenue before the last date of filing of the return. We do not find any illegality in order of Tribunal. Tax Appeal is therefore, dismissed." 7. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
