9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 525 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] This issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thomas George Muthoot [ 2015 (7) TMI 810 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . Being so, within the jurisdiction of Kerala High Court, the issue in dispute cannot be said to be a debatable issue. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is justified in making addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act vide proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act dated 02/08/2010. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 317/Coch/2018 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2019 - S/Shri Chandra Poojari, AM And George George K., JM For the Assessee : Shri Raja Kannan, Adv. For the Revenue : Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we condone the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. A) The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against law and facts and circumstances of the case. The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a travesty of justice and cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant. B) The Appellate Commissioner ought to have found that going by the provisions of the 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) the appellant is entitled to deduction of the payments made to M/s. Born Builders Pvt. Ltd. as the said sub-contractor (Born Builders) have duly filed returns by including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act as issued clearly beyond jurisdiction. 4 The facts of the case are that the assessee firm had not deducted TDS from the labour charges paid amounting to ₹ 2434192/- for AY 2006-07. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 154 of the Act on 02/08/2010. The Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 2434192/- on account of disallowance of labour charges u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee in advancement of his claim that the second proviso is applicable retrospectively from 01/04/2005 has relied on various decisions of non-jurisdictional Tribunals and High Courts. However, the CIT(A) was of the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court wherein the Supreme Court in Diary No. 24249/2017 dated 25th August, 2017 granted leave in respect of the judgment of the Delhi High Court cited supra. As such, according to him, this issue is a debatable issue and the Assessing Officer should not have dealt the issue in dispute u/s. 154 of the Act. The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306)wherein it was held that the omission of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2003, operated, retrospectively, with effect from april 1, 1988 and not prospectively from April, 2004. Earlier under the second proviso to section 43B as amended by the Finance Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
