By Sri. Ravi Raj Y.v, Advocate v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010)1 Scc 489 Vide Annx

Digitally signed byVANDANA SLocation: HighCourt of Karnataka NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 24901 OF 2022 (TIT) C/W -WRIT PETITION NO. 24922 OF 2022 (TIT), -WRIT PETITION NO. 24936 OF 2022 (TIT),-WRIT PETITION NO. 24937 OF 2022 (TIT),-WRIT PETITION NO. 24938 OF 2022 (TIT), -WRIT PETITION NO. 24939 OF 2022 (TIT), -WRIT PETITION NO. 24940 OF 2022 (TIT) IN WP NO. 24901/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. THE COMPANIES ACT. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP. BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S. 200 R/W. RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40(a)(ia) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT, THAT IS UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., (2010)1 SCC 489 VIDE ANNX- NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 F1 AND CHECKMATE ERVICE P.LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 VIDE ANNX-F2 DTD 12.10.2022 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 24922/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARATION THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 200 R/W , RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40 (A)(IA) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT , THAT IS UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD, (2010) 1 SCC 489 ANNEXURE - F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 ANNEXURE - F2 DATED 12.10.2022 ETC., IN WP NO. 24936/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP. BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S. 200 R/W. RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40(a)(ia) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT, THAT IS NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., (2010)1 SCC 489 VIDE ANNX-F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P.LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 VIDE ANNX-F2 DTD 12.10.2022 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 24937/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GEETHANJALI EFFECTIVE REALTY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.10/1, GROUNF FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., (2010)1 SCC 489 VIDE ANNX-F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P.LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 VIDE ANNX-F2 DTD 12.10.2022 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 24937/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GEETHANJALI EFFECTIVE REALTY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.10/1, GROUNF FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REPRESENTED BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S. 200 R/W. RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40(a)(ia) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT, THAT IS UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., (2010)1 SCC 489 VIDE ANNX-F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P.LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 VIDE ANNX-F2 DTD 12.10.2022 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 24938/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. GEETHANJALI EFFECTIVE REALTY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S. 200 R/W. RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40(a)(ia) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT, THAT IS UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., (2010)1 SCC 489 VIDE ANNX-F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P.LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 VIDE ANNX-F2 DTD 12.10.2022 AND ETC., IN WP NO. 24939/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARATION THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 200 R/W , RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40 (A)(IA) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT , THAT IS UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD, (2010) 1 SCC 489 ANNEXURE - F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 ANNEXURE - F2 DATED 12.10.2022 AND ETC., NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 IN WP NO. 24940/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REG. PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 IN WP NO. 24940/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, REG. PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 2. SRI. P. RAVINDRA PAI, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. P. DAYANAND PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE - 1(1,) 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032, REP BY DR. VIJAYAKUMAR M.D. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022 WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, H.M.T BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARATION THAT THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 200 R/W , RULE 30 OF THE IT RULES STANDS EXTENDED AS PER SECTION 139 RWS. 201(1) RWS. 40 (A)(IA) RWS. 43B OF THE IT ACT , THAT IS UPTO THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE IT ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD, (2010) 1 SCC 489 ANNEXURE - F1 AND CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD, VS.CIT (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1423 ANNEXURE - F2 DATED 12.10.2022 AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 ORDER In W.P.No.24901/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.02.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)C-27/2017-18 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24922/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.02.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)C-27/2017-18 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24922/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.06.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2016-17 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24936/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.02.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2017-18 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24937/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.10.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2016-17 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24938/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.10.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24939/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.10.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24939/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.11.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2017-18 passed by the third respondent." In W.P.No.24940/2022, the petitioners seek for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022. b. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.06.2018 bearing No.F.No.45/C.I.T.(T.D.S)G-14/2018-19 Annexure-J passed u/s. 279 of the IT Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 passed by the third respondent." 2. Heard Sri M.V.Seshachala, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Y.V. Ravi Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-revenue and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petitions and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned orders in order to point out that the return of income declaring payment of entire TDS amount for the periods 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014; 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015; 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015; 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016; 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015; 01.04.2016 NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 to 31.03.2017 and 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 respectively, with interest was within the extended period of the amended provisions of Section 139 r/w Section 201(1) and Section 43B(a) and Section 40(a)(i-a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’). It was submitted that without taking into consideration the amended provisions and the extended period, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 279 of the I.T.Act erroneously holding that the petitioners – assessees committed default in payment of TDS under Section 200 r/w Rule 30 of the I.T. Rules and as such, the petitioners having deposited the entire TDS amount together with interest as per the amended provisions and the extended period and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i)M/s. Century Real Estate Vs.DCIT - Crl.P.3321/2022 dated: 15.09.2022; (i)M/s. Century Real Estate Vs.DCIT - Crl.P.3321/2022 dated: 15.09.2022; (ii) CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., - (2010) 1 SCC 489; NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 (iii) Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT - (2022) SCC Online SC 1423; (iv) Raza Textiles Ltd., Vs. ITO - (1973) 1 SCC 633; (v) CIT Vs.Calcutta Export Co., - (2018) 16 SCC 686; (vi) Shree Choudhary Transport Co., Vs. ITO - (2021) 13 SCC 401. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners deducted TDS for the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2015-16 respectively and return of income was filed declaring payment of entire TDS amount with interest within the extended period. In this context, it is relevant to state that by virtue of the amended deeming provisions contained in Sections 191, 193, 194J, 194-I, 194C and 194H of the I.T.Act, a distinction has been made between actual payment and deemed payment and the NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 petitioners were obliged to show interest payment on the Book entry showing TDS deductions even though actual payment had not been made and consequently, by virtue of the amended deeming provisions, since the petitioners had filed the returns and paid TDS with interest within the extended period, Sections 276B and 278B were not attracted to the facts of the instant case. 6. The scope and ambit of judicial review by this Court of an order passed by the respondents 3 and 4 which are quasi judicialauthorities by exercising jurisdiction under the I.T.Act on wrong facts, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Raza Textiles vs. Income Tax Officer – (1973) 1 SCC 633,wherein it is held as under:- 3. Aggrieved by that order the appellant went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable. He took the view that an appeal lay only under Section 30(1-A). But, before such an appeal can be entertained the appellant must satisfy two conditions, namely, (1) he had deducted the tax due from the non-resident in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B); and (2) that he had paid the sum deducted NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 3. Aggrieved by that order the appellant went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable. He took the view that an appeal lay only under Section 30(1-A). But, before such an appeal can be entertained the appellant must satisfy two conditions, namely, (1) he had deducted the tax due from the non-resident in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-B); and (2) that he had paid the sum deducted NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 to the Government. The appellant having not complied with those two conditions, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the appeal was incompetent. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. That application came up before a Single Judge. The Single Judge after going into the matter in dated came to the conclusion that Messrs Nathirmal and Sons is not a non-resident firm and that being so the appellant was not required to act under Section 18(3-B). He accordingly set aside the order impugned. The revenue went up in appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge to the Appellate Bench. That Bench allowed the appeal with the observations, “in the present case the question before the Income Tax Officer, Rampur, was whether the firm Nathirmal and Sons was non-resident or not. There was material before him on this question. He had jurisdiction to decide the question either way. It cannot be said that the officer assumed jurisdiction by a wrong decision on this question of residence”. The Appellate Bench appears to have been under the impression that the Income Tax Officer was the sole Judge of the fact whether the firm in question was resident or non-resident. This conclusion in, our opinion, is wholly wrong. No authority, much less a quasi-judicial authority, can confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. The question whether the Jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 question that is open for examination by the High Court in an application for a writ of certiorari. If the High Court comes to the conclusion, as the learned Single Judge has done in this case, that the Income Tax Officer had clutched at the Jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact erroneously, then the assessee was entitled for the writ of certiorari prayed for by him. It is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income Tax Officer can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen. In our opinion, the Appellate Bench is wholly wrong in opining that the Income Tax Officer can “decide either way”. 7. While interpreting the amended provisions of Sections 191, 193, 194J, 194-I, 194C and 194H of the I.T.Act, the Apex Court has held that a Book entry is treated as ‘deemed income’ by virtue of the said amendments. In the case of Commissioner of Inocme Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Limited - (2010) 1 SCC 489, the Apex Court held as under:- 17. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B (main section), which stood inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from 1-4-1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 17. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B (main section), which stood inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from 1-4-1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 making a book entry based on mercantile system of accounting. At the same time, Section 43-B (main section) made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing the income under Section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess, etc. is actually paid. However, Parliament took cognizance of the fact that accounting year of a company did not always tally with the due dates under the Provident Fund Act, the Municipal Corporation Act (octroi) and other tax laws. Therefore, by way of first proviso, an incentive/relaxation was sought to be given in respect of tax, duty, cess or fee by explicitly stating that if such tax, duty, cess or fee is paid before the date of filing of the return under the Income Tax Act (due date), the assessee(s) then would be entitled to deduction. However, this relaxation/incentive was restricted only to tax, duty, cess and fee. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. The reason appears to be that the employer(s) should not sit on the collected contributions and deprive the workmen of the rightful benefits under social welfare legislations by delaying payment of contributions to the welfare funds. 8. So also, the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata XII vs. Calcutta Export compnay – (2018) 16 SCC 686, held as under:- 27. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(i-a) of the IT Act to provide that all NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with the Government by the due date of filing the return of income. The idea was to allow additional time to the deductors to deposit the TDS so made. However, the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2010 expressly mentioned as follows: “This amendment is proposed to take effect retrospectively from 1-4-2010 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11 and subsequent years.” 28.The controversy surrounding the above amendment was whether the amendment being curative in nature should be applied retrospectively i.e. from the date of insertion of the provisions of Section 40(a)(i-a) or to be applicable from the date of enforcement. 29. TDS results in collection of tax and the deductor discharges dual responsibility of collection of tax and its deposition to the Government. Strict compliance of Section 40(a)(i-a) may be justified keeping in view the legislative object and purpose behind the provision but a provision of such nature, the purpose of which is to ensure tax compliance and not to punish the taxpayer, should not be allowed to be converted into an iron rod provision which metes out stern punishment and results in malevolent results, disproportionate to the offending act and aim of the legislation. Legislature can and do experiment and intervene from time to time when they feel and notice that the existing provision is causing and creating unintended and excessive NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 hardships to citizens and subject or have resulted in great inconvenience and uncomfortable results. Obedience to law is mandatory and has to be enforced but the magnitude of punishment must not be disproportionate by what is required and necessary. The consequences and the injury caused, if disproportionate do and can result in amendments which have the effect of streamlining and correcting anomalies. As discussed above, the amendments made in 2008 and 2010 were steps in the said direction only. Legislative purpose and the object of the said amendments were to ensure payment and deposit of TDS with the Government. 30. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section, is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. 31. The purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies that the insertion of Section 40(a)(i-a) was causing to the bona fide taxpayer. The amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to the Revenue when the tax rates are stable and uniform or in cases of big assessees having substantial turnover and equally huge expenses and necessary cushion to absorb the effect. However, marginal and medium taxpayers, who work at low NC: 2024:KHC:4614 WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 gross product rate and when expenditure which becomes subject-matter of an order under Section 40(a)(i-a) is substantial, can suffer severe adverse consequences if the amendment made in 2010 is not given retrospective operation i.e. from the date of substitution of the provision. Transferring or shifting expenses to a subsequent year, in such cases, will not wipe off the adverse effect and the financial stress. Such could not be the intention of the legislature. Hence, the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 being curative in nature required to be given retrospective operation i.e. from the date of insertion of the said provision. 32. Further, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. [Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , this Court while dealing with a similar question with regard to the retrospective effect of the amendment made in Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has held that the new proviso to Section 43-B should be given retrospective effect from the inception on the ground that the proviso was added to remedy unintended consequences and supply an obvious omission. The proviso ensured reasonable interpretation and retrospective effect would serve the object behind the enactment. The aforesaid view has consistently been followed by this Court in the following cases viz. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. CIT [Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. CIT, (2000) 9 SCC 62 : (2000) 245 ITR 3] , CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. [CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., (2002) 10 SCC 457 : (2002) 255 NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 ITR 117] and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 : (2009) 319 ITR 306] NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 ITR 117] and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 : (2009) 319 ITR 306] 33. Hence, in light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Motors [Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , we are of the view that the amended provision of Section 40(a)(i-a) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(i-a) was inserted i.e. with effect from Assessment Year 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates. As the developments with regard to the section recorded above show that the amendment was curative in nature, it should be given retrospective operation as if the amended provision existed even at the time of its insertion. Since the assessee has filed its returns on 1-8-2005 i.e. in accordance with the due date under the provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act, hence, is allowed to claim the benefit of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40(a)(i-a) of the IT Act. 9. Similarly, in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 - (2023) 6 SCC 451, the Apex Court held as under: NC: 2024:KHC:4614WP No. 24901 of 2022C/W WP No. 24922 of 2022WP No. 24936 of 2022WP No. 24937 of 2022WP No. 24938 of 2022WP No. 24939 of 2022WP No. 24940 of 2022 50. This condition i.e. of payment of actual amount on or before the due date to enable deduction, continued for 14 years. By the amendment of 2003, the second proviso was deleted. This Court interpreted the law, in the light of these developments, in Alom Extrusions [CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489] . The Court considered the effect of omission of the second proviso, and observed as follows : (SCC pp. 493-96, paras 9-11, 15, 18-19 & 22- 23) “9. “Income” has been defined under Section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of such employees constituted income. This is the reason why every assessee(s) [employer(s)] was entitled to deduction even prior to 1-4-1984, on mercantile system of accounting as a business expenditure by making provision in his books of accounts in that regard. In other words, if an assessee(s) [employer(s)] is maintaining his books on accrual system of accounting, even after collecting the contribution from his employee(s) and even without remitting the amount to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction as business expense by merely making a provision to that effect in his books of accounts. 10. The same situation arose prior to 1-4-1984, in the context of assessees collecting sales tax and other indirect taxes from their respective customers and claiming deduction only by making provision in their books without actually remitting the amount to the exchequer. To curb this practice, Section 43-B was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984, by which the mercantile system of accounting with regard to tax, duty and contribution to welfare funds stood discontinued and, under