Itta/183/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii v. M/S. Prabhakar Reddy And Co

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLAT TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.183 OF 2013 DATED:3.7.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIHyderabad … Appellant AndM/s. Prabhakar Reddy & Co.,BPR TowersDoor No.4-3-143/AGround FloorAttapurHyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.183 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred on the following suggestedquestions of law. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding thatdeduction to a tune of Rs.78,10,743/- representing thecontractual payment relatable to the assessment year 2005-06 could be granted in the year 2006-07 on the mere basis ofpayment of TDS on such component in terms of proviso toSection 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, not withstanding thesame must be deemed to have been considered byimplication in determination of income on estimate basis in theassessment under Section 144 of the Act in the precedingyear?” This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal, dt.30.1.2009, in relation to assessment year 2006-07. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order. The learned Tribunal has remanded the matter to the AssessingOfficer, observing as under. “Since there is no material on record to show as towhen the payment of TDS was deposited by the assessee,as provided under the amended proviso to Section 40(a)(ia)(supra) and this aspect of the matter has not been examinedby the AO and the ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that thematter should go back to the file of the A.O. and accordinglywe set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities onthis issue and restore the matter to the file of the A.O., whoshall examine the same afresh in the light of our observations hereinabove and in accordance with law after providing areasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” We find a very little contradiction in the concluding portion of theorder with the earlier observation. It is for the safer side the entireissue should be decided by the Assessing Officer, as it had beenremanded for fresh hearing in relation to amendment of the proviso toSection 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We dispose of the appeal with the aforesaid direction. No orderas to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 3.7.2013 bnr