TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n turn ascended out of order of intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru [for short 'Ld. CPC'] . 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that; 2.1 The appellant assessee is a resident partnership firm filed its return of income [for short 'ITR'] on 29/07/2020 u/s 139(4) of the Act declaring total income Rs.1,91,15110/-. For AY under consideration, the CBDT extended the due date of filing ITR from 30/09/2019 to 30/10/2019. On the basis of Tax Audit Report [for short 'TAR'] the Ld. CPC disallowed a sum of Rs.1,69,63,968/- u/s 43B of the Act for assessee's failure to discharge statutory dues by actual payment within the due date of filing as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and processed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perusal of intimation us 143(1) of the Act issued by CPC in this case seen that the appellant has disclosed his total income under the head PGBP amounting to Rs. 1,91,15,110/- only whereas the disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report amounting to Rs. 1,69,63,968/-but not taken into account in computing the total income in his return under the head PGBP. 4.6 Keeping in view of above it is concluded that the CPC has rightly made addition / disallowed of Rs. 1,69,63,970/- u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.‛ (Emphasis supplied) 3. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR Mr Kulkarni reiterated appellant's all arguments which were taken before f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 139(1) for the purpose of section 43B of the Act? In simple terms 'as to whether discharge or actual payment of expenditure/liability made any time after the expiry of due date or extended due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but before filing of ITR u/s 139(4) of the Act qualifies for deduction in computing income u/c IV-D without attracting provisions of section 43B of the Act?' 6. It is well settled law that, items of expenditure/liability subscribed u/c (a) to (g) in section 43B of the Act which are otherwise allowed as deductions while computing business income u/c IV-D of the Act, shall indeed be allowed in a previous year in which such sums are actually paid irrespective of financial year in which liability towards was incur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed to it for discharging liability towards expenditure debited to profit & loss account. This however fails to evoke our concurrence for the reasons that, section 43B opens with a non-obstante clause under the heading 'certain deductions to be only on actual payment'. As per settled principles of interpretation, a non-obstante clause assumes an overriding character against any other provision of general application. It declares that within the sphere allotted to it by the Parliament, it shall not be controlled or overridden by any other provision unless specifically provided for. 9. Out of the allowable deductions, the legislature consciously earmarked certain deductions from time to time and included them in the ambit of Section 43B ....