TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee was having sufficient reasons in filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the mater on merits. 3 The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the assessment order which had disallowed a sum of Rs. 31 lakhs by invoking provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business of film release and distribution. For the relevant assessment year, the return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 7,56,853/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act fixing the total income of Rs. 38,97....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments made to the artists of Rs. 31,00,0001-. Assessee has not furnish any certificate u/s.197 for non deduction of tax and hence AO is correct in law in making this disallowance. It is noticed that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, vide its order dated 28-03-2013 in the case of CIT vs. Crescent Export Syndicate in IT AT No. 20/2013, has held that the decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports is not acceptable. It is also noticed that the Hon'be High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated 02-05-2013 in the case of CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar (Tax Appeal No. 905/2012 & Ors.) has held that the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports does not lay down the correct law. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) had held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is to be restricted to the expenditure that is payable and not to be extended to cover an expenditure that has been paid. The judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot (supra) had categorically held that section 40(a)(ia) disallowance is also applicable to the expenditure which are paid during financial year also. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot (supra) read as follows: "17.Another contention that was pressed into service was that the appellants had already paid the amount and therefore....