TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,00,000 in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 3. An amount of Rs. 10,64,146 was received by the assessee as a sub contractor and the same was again given to others for executing the job. The assessee being a sub contractor in respect of such amount is not covered under section 194C of the I T Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) are not applicable in respect of this amount. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition to an extent of Rs. 2,49,73,714 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act. 5. The assessee craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee submitted that squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of this tribunal in the case of Shri K. Srinivas Naidu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad (ITA No. 719/Hyd/2009) for assessment year 2005-06 dated 18th December, 2009 and in the case of M/s Teja Constructions, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Range-II, Hyderabad (ITA No. 308/Hyd/2009) dated 23-10-2009. It is further submitted that if the TDS has been deducted during the last month of the previous year and paid to the Government before the due date of filing of the return, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted as per the amendment in the proviso made in Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2005. He also relied on the modification order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vious year and paid before the date of filing of the return is not attracted disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Act. 6. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee agreed for the addition only on ignorance and ignorance of law will not disentitle the assessee to claim the deduction. Since the provisions containing in section 40a(ia) are dealing provisions and a liberal view should be taken. He relied on the Circular No.14 dated 11-4-1955 for the proposition that the assessing officer should draw attention of the assessee to any reliefs to which the assessee appear to be clearly entitled but which the assessee have omitted to claim for some reason or other and Officers of the department must not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not on payment of principal amount with or without deduction of TDS by the payer to the payee but on the payment of TDS. Moreover, the amendment made in the Finance Act 2008 with timeframe i.e., clauses (A) and (B) to the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act also indicates that the provision is basically brought into the Act to tackle the situation of non-deduction of tax and non-payment of TDS in time. The most important feature of the amendment in Finance Act, 2008 is that, the reference to section 200(1) which is confined to deposit of TDS and not deduction itself has been omitted in the substituted provision. In the following two types of the assessees, there will be no disallowance of the amount for which TDS was deductible, within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not controvert the same. Hence, in our considered view, proviso (A) inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 which is retrospective one from 2005 will apply to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the CIT (A) is not correct. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to delete the same. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative that the addition made by the assessing officer is on agreed basis and the same cannot be agitated before the higher authorities. In our considered view, the department should not take the advantage of the ignorance of the assessee while claiming some relief which the assessee is legally entitled. In the case under consideration, the assessee is leg....