TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated 27.11.2009. 2. The grievances raised by the Revenueare as follows: "1 The ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata erred in law by allowing the expenses on account of hire charges, paid to different parties by the assessee, though TDS has not been deducted on the same, as such, not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata erred in law by deleting the addition made u/s 69B of the I.T. Act, 1961 not considering the information received in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961." 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in assessee's own case vide order dated 05.10.2016 (Supra). In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: "7. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the Amendment in Sec. 201(1) of the Act has been brought by the Finance Act, 2012 which is curative in nature. Therefore, it should be effective from the retrospective date. In this connection, we rely on the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Santosh Kumar Kedia vs. ITOin ITA No.1905/Kol/2014 dated 04.03.2015 and the relevant operative portion is reproduced below:- "... From the above, judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee that the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in paragraph 21 of its judgment dealt with the limited argument made on behalf of the assessee recorded in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment and cannot be read as deciding the question as to whether the second proviso is curative and clarificatory of the law from its inception. The question whether the second proviso is curative and clarificatory did not arise for consideration in Crescent's case, was not debated before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In State of Haryana v. Ranbir, (2006) 5 SCC 167, has discussed the concept of the biter dictum thus: 'A decision, it is well settled, is an authority for what it dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee is not default for non-deduction of TDS." 8. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No.2734/Kol/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 (supra) and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings and the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. We find no reason to interfere in the said order of the ld. CIT(A) and his order on this issue is hereby upheld and this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 9. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue relates to addition made u/s 69B of the Act not considering the information received in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n so collected by the Assessing Officer u/s 133(6) of the Act, from the third party had not provided to the assessee and due to this the assessee failed to reconcile the facts during scrutiny assessment. The information so collected by the A.O. was in "Excel Sheet" andnot the statement of Account of Mr. P. C. Sahoo, in the Books of Account of Patel - KNR (JV) and this type ofstatement is manufactured one and there is no relation with the Books of Account.As per Excel Sheet statement of account as collected by the A.O, the OpeningBalance as on 01.04.2007 is Rs. 1,90,104/- whereas the statement of account of Mr. P.C. Sahoo inthe Books of Account of Patel - KNR (JV) Opening Balance as on 01.04.2007 is Rs. 3,05,801/-. If Patel - KNR (JV) find a....