9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee is directed against the Order of theCIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 25.10.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee has filed itsreturn of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 30.09.2009,declaring NIL income. The case was selected for security by issuing noticeunder section 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment wascompleted under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has estimated asum of ₹ 25,43,17,766/- towards sub-contract expenses. Though the sumof ₹ 28,81,420/- was deducted at source as tax, it was remitted to theGovernment account on 7.4.2009. The assessee claimed that theamendment to section 40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d followinggrounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of thecase. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that theamendment brought, in by Finance Act, 2010 to Section 40(a)(ia)is effective from 1.4.2010 onwards and as such applicable fromassessment year 2010-11 and subsequent assessment years. 3. The learned CIT(A) should have recognized that the intention oflegislature from the Notes on clauses and Memorandumexplaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2010 does notparticularly indicate any relaxation in the provisionsretrospectively from assessment year 2005-06 onwards. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the MumbaiSpecial 'B' Bench in the case of Bharathi Shipyard vs. DCIT,Circle 3(1), (ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notes on clauses and the Memorandum explaining the provisions of theFinance Bill does not particularly indicate any relaxation in the provisionretrospectively from assessment year 2005-06. The objective sought to beachieved by bringing out section 40(a)(ia) is the augmentation of the TDScollections/compliance. The fact that this provision is still continuing in theAct, proves that the Parliament did not consider it expedient to remove thevigour of section 40(a)(ia) projecting any so-called hardship, which is onlythe side effect in the attainment of the larger goal of augmentation ofcompliance of TDS provision. 8. The learned A.R. relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 dated 12.07.2013 wherein the Hon'bleAndhra Pradesh High Court held that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia)made by the Finance Act of 2010 is retrospective in nature. We find that theAhmedabad Bench has taken note of the decision in the case of M/s.Bharati Shipyard in ITA.No.2404/Mum/2009 and finally held that theamendment to section 40(a)(ia) permitting the deductor to remit the TDS toGovernment account on or before the due date of filing return under section139(1) is retrospective and therefore, applicable to the assessment year2009-10 as in the present case. Being so, if it is remitted within the duedate, the assessee claim to be allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is disposed-off as indicated above. Order pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
