TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid delay submitting as under: - "4. I was given to understand that no relief would be available to me in respect of non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(a)(ai). I am given to understand now it is likely that relief would be available to me, since the issue under appeal is on a law point and since relief is being allowed in other matters in view of the decisions stated herein below. a. Merilyn Shipping and Transport V. ACIT 9ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) b. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. CIT 293 ITR 226. 5. I therefore pray that the delay be condoned in filing the appeal. 6. The delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and no prejudice would be caused to the department but heavy prejudice would be caused to me. 7. I shall be grateful to the Hon. ITAT for condoining the delay and admitting the appeal." 2.2 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. Admittedly, there was a delay of 248 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katji & Others (167 ITR 471) (SC), while laying down the principle for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e listed at (i) in para 3.1 of Rs. 15 lakhs (supra) was deleted by the learned CIT(A), who however fully upheld the disallowance under section 40(a)9ia) of the Act listed at (ii) and (iii) (supra). In respect of the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) as listed at (iv) in para 3.1 (supra), the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 8,42,640/- and allowed the assessee partial relief of Rs. 4,11,180/-. 4. The assessee, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 01.06.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08, has preferred the present appeal raising the following grounds: - "1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in: - a. Upholding the addition of Rs. 10,08,745/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of interest which is unwarranted and unlawful. b. Upholding the addition of Rs. 3,58,040/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of editing charges which his unwarranted and unlawful. c. Upholding the addition of Rs. 8,42,640/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of hiring charges which is unwarranted and unlawful; The Appellant crave leave to add, delete or substantiate any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 5. Ground No. 1(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicial pronouncements cited/relied. On an appreciation of the facts on record it is seen that the authorities below have made and sustained the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source in respect of interest payments by the assessee to M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd. as it was not a financial institution in terms of the provisions of section 194A of the Act. According to the learned A.R. of the assessee there is no dispute that the said interest payment was made to Adlabs Film Ltd. in the period under consideration. It is contended that since the recipient, i.e. Adlabs Films Ltd. has confirmed that it has offered the same income for tax in its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08, i.e. the year under consideration, there is no loss to Revenue and hence the disallowance made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be deleted. In this regard, the attention of the Bench was drawn to the paper book filed by the assessee and to pages 2 to 6 thereof which is a copy of Form No. 26A of M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (formerly Adlabs Films Ltd.) issued by Chartered Accountant certifying that the aforesaid interest paid by the assessee has been duly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efault and then no disallowance is attracted under section 40(a)(ia). He has further submitted that the said newly inserted proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is in fact clarificatory in nature and should be applied/retrospectively for the year under consideration and as such no disallowance is attracted on this issue. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has contended that it has been specifically provided in the Act that the said proviso comes into operation w.e.f. 01.04.13 and that where the language of the section as well as the date of operation of such provisions has been mentioned specifically the courts cannot supply words to the provisions or amend the provisions to give it a different meaning and further that the newly inserted proviso under such circumstances is prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.13 and cannot be applied retrospectively. 5. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought to our notice that the issue relating to operation of the newly inserted proviso whether prospective or retrospective in nature has already been considered and decided by the co-ordinate Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of "Shri S.M. Anand Vs. ACIT" in ITA No.183/Bang./13 for A.Y.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed for an assessee not to be held as an assessees in default as per proviso to section 201 of the Act. In all fairness, the assessee in the period under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 205-06 could not have contemplated that such a compliance was to be made and therefore in the interest of equity and justice we set aside the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer directing the Assessing Officer to consider the allowance or otherwise of the expenditure claimed amounting to Rs. 4,23,96,500; being the payments made by the assessee to Sri G. Shankar of Rs. 2,69,21,500 and to Sri Ramesh Kotiar, of Rs. 1,54,75,000 after affording the assessee adequate opportunity to file Form No.26A and only after due verification of whether the aforesaid two payees / recipients have reflected the same receipts in their books of account and have offered the some to tax. In these circumstances, we hereby set aside the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) to the file of the Assessing Officer only for the limited purpose as directed above." 6. Almost identical view has been taken by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "Rajeev Kumar Agarw....