9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive operation to the said amendment notwithstanding that the parliament has expressly stated that it comes into effect from 01.04.2010. The said amendment is curative in nature. The tribunal committed an error in holding it as prospective. The substantial questions of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - ITA No. 551/2015 - - - Dated:- 29-2-2016 - Jayant Patel And B. V. Nagarathna, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri E I Sanmathi, Adv JUDGMENT The appellant-revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising following substantial questions of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amendment to the provisions of section 40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in AIR 1997 SC 1361 and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306, has held as under: 15.4: Thus, considering relevant legislative changes made by the Parliament from time to time and. some of the decisions relevant to consider the question of retrospectivity raised in these present appeals, the focal question, therefore, would be whether the amendment brought about by way of Finance Act 2010 in Section 40 [a](ia) with effect from 1st April 2010 could be said to be clarificatory in nature for attending to unintended consequences, and therefore, is haiding retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. 16: A closer examination needs to be done as to whether the amended prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome' chargeable under the head 'Profit Gains' of business or profession. Such provision starts with non obstante clause which states that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 30 to 38 of the Incometax Act, if the tax deducted at source is not paid within prescribed time [under Section 200 (1)], no amount could be deducted while computing the income, under Chapter IV of the 'computation of business income'. 16.3: Therefore, by way of amendment of Finance Act, 2008, further amendment was made whereby TDS deductible and deducted in the last month of previous year if was not paid till the due date of filing of return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 and in any other case, on or before the last day of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a]. 16.6: We also cannot be oblivious of submissions not denied by the other side that various representations were made to the Finance Minister to bring about suitable amendment as the assessee otherwise was losing genuine deduction of expenditure on this count as also reflected in the speech of Finance Minister so also in the memorandum explaining the provision of the Finance Bill. 16.7: Giving plain or natural meaning to the amendment as contended by the Department, if is likely to create a, situation enhancing the hardship and advance discrimination, purposive and. reasonable interpretation is required to be given by the Court. When plain interpretation frustrates the very legislative intent, the Court is expected to bear in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion by way of Finance Act, 2010, this amendment essentially has been brought for relaxing the current provision on disallowajice of expenditure. The tax, if is deducted at any time during the financial year and paid before the date of filing of the return, the Legislature intended to allow deduction on such expenditure with an intention to permit additional time for most deductors upto September of the next financial year. 17.1: We draw further support from the fact that the rigor of payment of interest is also enhanced by increasing the interest charged on tax deducted, if any deposit by the specified date i.e., up to the filing of the return is not made from 12% to 18% per annum in the provision of Section 201 (1A). Prior to the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is answered in favour of the assesse and against the revenue. 3. The aforesaid shows that, the question was already covered by the decision of this Court in case of CIT Vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Shetty (2014) 89 CCH 199. 4. Once the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court, we do not see any substantial question of law which would arise for consideration. However, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue did contend that, subsequently, similar view taken by this Court in case of Uday Kumar ITA 590/13 is carried before the Apex Court and therefore, the issue has not yet been concluded. 5. In our view, as on today, the decision of this Court operates and therefore, it cannot be said that substantial questions of law would ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
