TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vised computation before the ld. Assessing Officer which was not considered by him and further revised return could not be filed as time for filing the revised return has already been elapsed. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) and order of the Tribunal in CHICAGO PNEUMATIC INDIA LTD. vs DCIT 15 SOT 252 (Bom.). On the other hand, the ld. DR, though defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order, but had no objection if the matter is remanded to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee, a limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal before this Tribunal. 2.2. Now, question arises whether the revised computation was to be considered by the Assessing Officer specially when time for filing revised return had elapsed? Under the facts, stated hereinabove, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers and Share Holders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) held that appellate authorities have power to consider the claim not made in the return by following the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Gurjagravureous P. Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, it was held that the assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions, before the appellate authorities, but also entitled to raise additional claim before them and further app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole. As per the sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of section 40 when tax is deductible at source on the payment under Chapter XVII and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then the said deduction is not allowable. As per the sub-clause (A) of sub-clause (ia) if the tax is deducted during the last month of previous year and paid on or before the due date of filing of return as per the provisions of section 139(1) then such sum shall be allowed as deduction. In the cases where the tax is deducted during previous year other than the last month of previous year but is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither no tax was deducted or it was not paid after deduction. But when the tax is deducted may be belatedly and deposited belatedly then deduction is allowable in the previous year in which it was so deposited. Therefore, if the provisions of section 194C with respect to the time of deduction and payments are applied for the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) then there will be no purpose or object for providing the certain conditions of actual deduction of tax and payment of tax under section 40(a)(ia). In our view, the provisions of Chapter XVII are relevant only for ascertaining the deductibility of the tax at source and not for the actual deduction and payment for attracting the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Since in the case in ha....