TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u1s.40(a)(ia) of Rs.1,69,89,200/- on irrelevant considerations by wrongly interpreting the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) and sec.201(1). 3. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong in confirming the disallowance u/s.-40(a)(ia) of Rs.1,69,89,200/- even though the Form 26A was furnished to him. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) wrongly interpreted the decision of Abhoy Charan Bakshi (ITA No. 1492/Kol/2015 dtd.06.04.2016. 4. FOR that the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds and/or take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. The Assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of executing construction contracts.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) wherein it was held that the aforesaid amendments to the proviso to section 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act were retrospective and were applicable right from the time when section 40(a)(ia) of the act were enacted. The assessee filed certificate in Form No.26A as required by the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and prayed that the additions made by the AO may be deleted. 5. Since additional evidence in the form of certificate of a Chartered Accountant was filed by the assessee before CIT(A), CIT(A) called for the remand report from the AO. In the remand report the main contention of the AO was that in the remand proceedings he had called for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id with certainty that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) also held that even if a certificate of an accountant is furnished in Form No.26A, the AO has the right to make further enquiries to verify the correctness of the aforesaid certificate. Since the AO could not make the required verification due to failure of Shri Banamali Koley to give the required details CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee cannot be given the benefit of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by CIT(A). 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anamali Koley the assessee has mentioned his own name. Nevertheless Annexure-A to Form No.26A which is a certificate given by a Chartered Accountant clearly confirms that Shri Banamali Koley has included the sum of Rs. 1,69,89,200/- received as labour charges from the assessee in the gross receipt accounted for by him in his books of account of Rs. 7,87,57,116/-. In the remand proceedings the AO had called for information from Shri Banamali Koley u/s 133(6) of the Act namely the details with documents regarding inclusion of Rs. 1,69,89,200/- in his return of income filed for A.Y.2012-13. Shri Banamali Koley in his letter dated 21.11.2016 has pointed out that the same AO had completed his assessment for A.Y.2012-13 u/s 143(3) of the Act date....