9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to our notice we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 861/PN/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-12-2015 - R K Panda, AM And Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Appellant : Shri Kishor Phadke For the Respondent : Shri Hitendra Ninawe ORDER Per R K Panda, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31-10-2013 of the CIT(A)-I, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue reads as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 60,02,351/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 holding that the amendment introduced by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made during the previous year as per provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is allowed as expenditure in the relevant assessment year if the TDS is credited to the Government Treasury on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act. Relying on the following decisions it was submitted that the amendment made by the said Finance Act, 2010 are retrospective in nature : 1. Virgin Creations GA 3200/2011 dated 23-11-2011 2. CIT Vs. Rajinder Kumar ITA No.65/2013 3. CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar ITA No.24/2013 and CIT Vs. Talbross P. Ltd 4. ITO Vs. Anand Buildcon ITA No.1168/PN/2011 (ITAT Pune dated 27-09-2012) 5. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of ITO Vs. Anand Buildcon vide ITA No.1168/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08. We find the Tribunal vide order dated 27-09-2012 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue by observing as under : 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Factually speaking, in this case, the tax has been deducted at source on payments of labour charges of ₹ 19,99,800/-, which is the subject matter of dispute. The only case made out by the Assessing Officer ITA No 1168 and CO 76/PN/11 Anand Buildcon A.Y. 2007-08 is that the tax deducted on such payment of labour charges, has been deposited in the Government Treasury belatedly i.e. on 31-5-2007. In terms of an amendment made to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd (supra), an identical issue came up before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creations (supra). In the said decision, the Tribunal vide its order dated 15-12-2010 (supra) held that the amendment in ITA No 1168 and CO 76/PN/11 Anand Buildcon A.Y. 2007-08 question made by the Finance Act 2010 would have retrospective application even for the A.Y. 2005-06 which was the assessment year before it. On an appeal by the Revenue before the Calcutta High Court against such a decision, the order of the Tribunal was affirmed. As a result of the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 23-11-2011 (supra), the impugned amendment made to the provision of section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, the wisdom of the court below has to yield to the higher wisdom of the Court above, and therefore, once an authority higher than this Tribunal has expressed its esteemed views on an issue, normally, the decision of the higher judicial authority is to be followed. The Bench has further held that the fact that the judgment of the higher judicial forum is from a nonjurisdictional High ITA No 1168 and CO 76/PN/11 Anand Buildcon A.Y. 2007-08 Court does not really alter this position as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf (113 ITR 589 (Bom). 19. In view of the above, we hold following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
