9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Held that:- The assessee had filed written submissions which was taken into consideration by CIT(A) while calling for the Remand Report – The assessee has made extra payment of TDS which was not considered by the CIT(A) – The issue was restored for fresh decision. - ITA No.1485,1696/Kol/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2013 - P K Bansal and George Mathan, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER:- Per: Bench: ITA No.1485/Kol/2012 is an appeal filed by the assessee and ITA No.1696/Kol/2012 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. C.I.T.(A)- X ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata has wrongfully applied the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made effective from 01.04.2010, while considering the assessee s claim of Rs.16,51,73,610/- whereas the said provision is not relevant for assessment of income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 pertaining to the Financial Year 2008- 09. 4. It was submitted by the ld. DR that the issue in the Revenue s appeal was against the action of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by AO by invoking the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act on account of non deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act in respect of the provision for the expenses for executing contract work. It was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of assessee had also been sent to AO. The AO has in his Remand Report clarified that he has verified the challans in respect of TDS and has accepted that an amount of Rs.21,09,600/- was deposited before the due date of filing of the return. A further perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that this amount of Rs.21,09,600/- was increased by ld. CIT(A) to Rs.22,08,276/- as one of the challans for an amount of Rs.98,676/- had not been included by AO. It is further noticed from the order of ld. CIT(A), wherein the Remand Report has been extracted, that AO also accepts that the amount of Rs.21.12 crores had been credited in the work-in-progress on 31.3.2009 and the provision for TDS was also made on the same day. Once this is so, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue is restored to the file of AO for verification. 9. We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the order of ld.CIT(A) shows that the assessee had filed written submissions which was taken into consideration by CIT(A) while calling for the Remand Report. It was noticed that ld.CIT(A) has even extracted the written submissions of assessee in his order. However, the further clarification filed by assessee does not find place in the order of ld. CIT(A). However, it is certified by the ld. AR that the said further clarification had been filed by assessee before ld. CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice as it is noticed that assessee has made excess payment of Rs.3,12,204/- this issue is restored to the file of AO for verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
