9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst Revenue. Disallowance made on account of sales tax liability - Held that:- No proper and sufficient opportunity was given either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A) to produce the relevant evidence either in the form of challan or a certificate issued by the concerned sales tax authority to show that the relevant tax liability was actually paid during the year under consideration. He has submitted that the assessee has actually paid a sum of ₹ 14.15 lakhs against the said liability during the year under consideration and an opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce the documentary evidence in support of the said payment for verification by the Assessing Officer. Since the Learned Departmental Representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaring total income of ₹ 1,04,56,245. From the details given in the audit report annexed to the said return, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that tax at source was deducted by the assessee from the payment of expenditure amounting to ₹ 5,69,07,949, but the same was paid to the credit of the Government, after the due date as prescribed in the relevant TDS provisions. In this regard, the explanation offered by the assessee that the entire TDS having been paid by it before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration, no disallowance under S.40(a)(ia) was called for in view of the amendment made to the said provision by the Finance Act, 2010 was not found acceptable by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 2013, the impugned amendment to section 40(a)(ia) permits remittance of TDS to the Central Government account on or before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act is retrospective in nature. Same view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. PEC Electricals Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 263 of 2013 dated 12.7.2013. The assessee in present case paid the TDS to the Central Government account before filing the return of income and the same is to be allowed as held by the above judgments. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, be allowed as deduction in the year under consideration, as the liability for works contract tax had arisen in that year. Although the assessee filed a copy of the relevant sales tax assessment order in support of its claim, the Assessing Officer noted that there was failure on the part of the assessee to adduce any evidence to show the actual payment of sales tax in the year under consideration either in the form of challan or certificate issued by the concerned sales tax authorities. He therefore, did not allow the claim of the assessee for deduction of ₹ 28,36,026, pertaining to works contract tax liability. 9. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue observing that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
