By JAGDISH D. SHAH I JAGDISH T. PUNJABI
Chartered Accountants
Section 40(a)(ia) – Amendment to section
40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 is retrospective in
operation and consequently disallowance
u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not called for in a case where there is late deposit of TDS
in Government Account when such delayed deposit is within the due date of
filing return of income.
FACTS
The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing order u/s. 143(3)
r.w.s. 263 of the Act noticed that amounts deducted by the assessee towards TDS
during the period from August 2007 to February 2008 were deposited in
Government Treasury after 30.4.2008 when these amounts should have been
deposited between 7.9.2007 to 7.3.2008.
Accordingly, the AO disallowed the payments by invoking provisions of
section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He
rejected the contention of the assessee that the amounts were deposited before
due date of filing return of income and since the amendment of section
40(a)(ia) is retrospective, the disallowance should not be made.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who
following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case and also
the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Naresh Kumar
[262 CTR 389] and co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Huda Construction
vs. ITO [ITA No. 816/Mum/2011 dated 15.4.2015] allowed the appeal.
Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
HELD:
The Tribunal noticed that the issue to be addressed is
whether there should be any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of late
remittance of TDS into government account when the assessee deposited such TDS
within due date for filing the return of income. Admittedly, there was a delay in deposit of
TDS by the assessee but the deposit was made before due date of filing return
of income.
The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered in favor of the
assessee, in its own case, by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the
Tribunal for assessment year 2009-2010.
The Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court has in the
case of CIT-II vs. Shraddha & S. S. Kale [ITA No. 1712 of 2014 dated
27.3.2017] decided the similar issue in favor of the assessee holding that the
amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 is
retrospective. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the
Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) and rejected the ground of revenue.
The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
