By Sri. K v. Aravind, Advocate

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF JULY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEARAVIND KUMAR AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.51 OF 2O12 BETWEEN M/S VISHWAS BUILDERS|VISHWAS CROWNNEAR COCHIN BAKERYKANKANADYMANGALORE - 5/5 OO)REP, BY ITS PARTNER|SRI. ABDUL RAUF PUTTIGEAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS|SON OF SRI.E.M. SHAFI — APPELLANT (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV. FORSRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.C.R.BUILDING, 1 FLOOR|NANDI GUDDA ROAD|ATTAVARA, MANGALURU —- 575 OO1 .., RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE!INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED.19.10.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.132/BANG/2011, FOR THE| ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING TO FORMULATE.THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN,AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF|THE ITAT BEARING ITA NO.132/B/2011 DATED 19.10.2011.ANNEXURE-'A’, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY|AND ETC.. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,|ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the assesee is directed againstthe order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal|dated 19.10.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.132/Bang/2011|(Annexure — A). — 2. The learned advocates appearing for the partiesin unison would fairly submit that issue involved in the)present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the)Apex Court rendered in 404 ITR page 654 and same has)beenfollowedbytheCo-ordinateBench.in.ITANo.422/2012 disposed of on 29.06.2020. 3. This appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:- 1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in not)canceling the order under Section 263 when'condition precedent for invoking 263 wasabsent?canceling the order under Section 263 when'condition precedent for invoking 263 wasabsent? 2?Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding|that the Section 40 (a) (ia) as amended byFinance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1[St]~ April 2010 do nothave retrospective effect?|that the Section 40 (a) (ia) as amended byFinance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1[St]~ April 2010 do nothave retrospective effect?| 3.Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding|that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ta) ofthe Act was possible when the appellant failedto deduct and remit tax on contract andprofessional charges payable within due date in|the respective months even when the provision|for deduction was made in the month of Marchand remitted to Government account before thedue date for filing the return under Section139(1) of the Act?that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ta) ofthe Act was possible when the appellant failedto deduct and remit tax on contract andprofessional charges payable within due date in|the respective months even when the provision|for deduction was made in the month of Marchand remitted to Government account before thedue date for filing the return under Section139(1) of the Act? 4. In the light of the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the parties, issue involved in this|appeal being no more)res integrain the lght of law|declared by the Apex Court referred to supra, this appeal|standsdisposedot|accordingly|by.answeringthesubstantial questions of law in favour of assessee and|against the revenue. Sd/-|JUDGE. Sd/-|JUDGE MH/-|