9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopening assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO u/s 147/148 of the I. T. Act is bad in law. 3. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the computation of income; and therefore, reopening beyond four year was illegal and not maintainable as per law. 4. That without prejudice, the confirmation of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 8,60,713/- is bad in law, as admittedly the TDS amount for the same was deposited on 29.04.2004 i.e. within the permissible time as per law. 5. That each ground is independent of and without prejudice to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) In response to the same, the assessee again filed a copy of its letter dated 28th February 2012. It appears that the AO was satisfied and no rectification was carried out. However, at the same time, it appears that the issues involved which were originally raised by the audit party did not die in the records of the Income Tax Department, resulting into issue of notice u/s 148 dated 30th March 2011. (iv) From the reasons recorded by the AO, it would be noticed that the same very two issues on which the assessee had filed its reply on the audit objections as well as against notice u/s 154 were made the subject matter of re-assessment proceedings. (v) From the reasons recorded, your honour would notice that the AO was relying upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate TDS has been made and deposited on the interest payment and no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act." 6. However, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 8,60,713/- by observing as under: "I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant has stated that the interest had been remitted to RR Plc, UK, and the details were furnished to the Assessing Officer along with copies of challans showing deposit of TDS. A copy of these certificates were again filed by the appellant in the paper book. The certificates show that payment of interest and deduction of TDS has been made as under: Date of Remittance Amount Remitted (in Rs.) TDS Deducted (in Rs.) Date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 in the next Financial Year but before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 10. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (supra) held has under: "When the respondent assessee deducted TDS in March 2007, i.e. last month of the previous year and paid the same before in April 2007 before the said date i.e. the date on which return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act is to be filed. Section 40(a)(ia) could not have been invoked." It is further been held that: "It is apparent that the respondent assessee did not violate the unamended section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have noted the ambiguity and referred their contention of Revenue and rejected the interpretation placed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
