9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a particular manner. Though assessee has furnished certain information before AO however they were not in the prescribed format and not accompanied with the certificate of the accountant showing that income has been included by payees in return of income. So it was rejected. Learned AO further held that there was no claim made by the assessee by filing revised return and therefore in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court it cannot be entertained. We find that as the honourable Delhi High Court has held that the above proviso inserted u/s 201 (1) is retrospective in nature the assessee must be granted the benefit of the above proviso provided the assessee furnish the requisite information before the assessing officer in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in confirming the above disallowance. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e information, learned assessing officer noted that a sum of ₹ 200,505,600/- was paid to subcontractors without deduction of tax at source, it is mentioned in tax Audit report and disallowed by Assessee while filing Return of Income. However in assessment proceedings, assessee filed a written submission wherein it has been contended that disallowance under that Section cannot be made as assessee is not an 'assessee in default'. Assessee furnished form number 26A as per rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules. The learned AO noted that the assessee is taking a benefit of the proviso inserted u/s 201(1) inserted with effect from 1 July 2012. He rejected the claim of the assessee that the proviso inserted with effect from 1/7/2012 is retrospe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) (ia) of The Income Tax Act holding that assessee has not made the claim in the return of income which is mandatory. He applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 284 ITR 323. According to him, assessee should have filed the revised return. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee was asked to produce evidence in this regard that payees have furnished returns u/s 139, included this sum in their return, and paid tax thereon. ld CIT (A) held that assessee could not brought anything on record to suggest that the receipt of ₹ 200,505,600/- has been taken into account for computing income in the return of income of the payee and the payee has paid the due tax on the income declared in its return of income. He f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viso inserted with effect from 1 July 2012 under the provisions of Section 201 (1) of the income tax act and which does not apply for assessment year 2012 - 13. Further AO held that assessee has not filed revised return and therefore relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 284 ITR 323 made the above disallowance. The learned CIT - A confirmed the same. We find that proviso inserted u/s 201 (1) by the finance act 2012 with effect from 1 July 2012 has been held to be retrospective in operation by honourable Delhi High Court in on Ansal landmark township private limited 377 ITR 635 as it is curative in nature. However to get the benefit of the above proviso certain particulars are required to be furnished before the AO in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee to furnish the requisite information in prescribed manner and also prescribed certificates to claim the benefit of the second proviso to Section 201 (1) of the act within 90 days from the date of this order, thereafter the learned CIT - A may examine himself or through the assessing officer the veracity of such information and if the same is found to be in order, the addition made u/s 40 (a)(ia) may be deleted to that extent. In view of this ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction. 8. The second ground of appeal is with respect to disallowance of cost of material amounting to ₹ 38,519,318/- as assessee failed to submit any information before the learned assessing officer as well as before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
