TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA No.1438/PN/2014 (By Revenue) : 3. First, we shall take-up the appeal of the Revenue for adjudication. By way of Ground No.1 of the Revenue appeal, the Assessing Officer has impugned the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,14,078/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act holding that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective in operation without appreciating that the law to be applied should be the one which is applicable to the relevant year. 3.1 Briefly stated, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing activity of programmable logic controllers at Pune. From the details provided b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oo, there is delay of only two days as due date was 07.04.2009 against which payment has been made on 09.04.2009. In this regard, it is seen that the rigours of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act were relaxed by Finance Act 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to enable an assessee to pay the tax deducted by him at source under Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of sec. 139 of Income-tax Act. In its judgment in CIT vs. Virgin Creations [ITA No.302 of 2011 dated 23.11.2011] the Calcutta High Court has taken a view that the aforesaid relaxation introduced by the Finance Act 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 would be available in earlier years too. Accordingly, following the above judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound No.1 of the Revenue appeal is dismissed. 5. By way of Ground No.2 of the Revenue appeal, the Revenue has also impugned the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,34,387/- under section 40(a)(ia) even when the assessee had not proved that TDS was deducted and paid before the end of the financial year as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5.1 The relevant facts concerning the issue are that the assessee inter-alia paid a sum of Rs. 4,34,387/- to M/s Reliable Manpower Services in respect of labour charges. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount on the ground that the TDS was not deducted and particulars of PAN/TAN of the parties were not furnished. 5.2 Before the CIT(A), the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in disallowing the amount of Rs. 4,34,387/-. Accordingly, he is directed to delete the same. Thus, ground No. 2 is allowed." 5.4 While addressing the issue, the Ld. AR for the assessee adverted our attention to the copy of the PAN card of the recipient and submitted that the TDS has been deducted on the labour charges paid. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, we set-aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition on being satisfied that the TDS on the aforesaid payment has been deducted and paid on or before the due date of filing of the return of income. The assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard while deciding the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely for business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and not justified. The CIT(A), however, declined to entertain the plea of the assessee on the ground that the disallowance has been carried out after discussion with the Counsel of the assessee which impliedly means that these expenses are not fully verifiable. He, accordingly, sustained the disallowance. 10.3 The Ld. AR for the assessee before us adverted our attention to the breakup of the expenditure noted above and submitted that expenses of Rs. 31,27,065/- includes a meager amount of Rs. 2,26,358/- towards Hotel and lunch expenses are duly supported by evidences. The Ld. AR further submitted that with reference to para 4.1 of the assess....