9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER : S S Godara These cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue respectively, arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli dated 20.11.2012 passed in ITA No.305/2010- 2011, for assessment year 2008-2009, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the Act ]. 2. In the course of hearing, the assessee in ITA No.175/Mds/2013 strongly argues that CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowances/additions of F.88,410/- in the nature of machining charges and F.1,00,000/- as general expenses. Accordingly, the assessee reiterates the pleadings and prays for acceptance of the appeal. 3. In reply, the Revenue strongly supports the CIT(A) s finding and prays for confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee s total income as Rs.40,74,475/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It is to be seen from the case file the CIT(A) has found the assessee to have paid the TDS amount before the due date of filing of return . Accordingly, he placed reliance on the case of CIT Vs Alum Extrusions Limited 319 ITR 306 ), holding therein that in the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40A(ia) should be read with retrospective effect. In this manner, the CIT(A) has deleted all additions by issuing necessary directions to the Assessing Officer except F 88,410/- and F 1,00,000/- in the nature of machining charges and general expenses(supra). Further, regarding machining charges, he observes that the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made for payment of direct wages, freight charges, X-ray and NDT payments etc., for failure to deduct TDS and the assessee has made payments of the tax deducted well before filing of the return . So, the assessee has been granted relief in view of the case law Alum Extrusions Limited (supra). We make it clear that no material has been produced by the Revenue to rebut the findings under challenge that TDS amount had not been deposited by the assessee before filing the return . Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed in ITA No.228/Mds/2013. 10. In the result, ITA No.175/Mds/2013 is partly allowed and ITA No.228/Mds/2013 is dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 28 th of August 2013, atChennai. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
