M/S Manzoor Ahmad Walvir v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT SRINAGAR ITA No. 06/2013 Date of order: 27.07.2017 M/s Manzoor Ahmad Walvir Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge. Appearing counsel: For the Appellant(s) : Mr.Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocte For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Advocate i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Per Badar Durrez Ahmed, CJ ( Oral) 1. We have delivered a decision in ITA No. 03/2013 which contains the details of the proceedings in respect of the Assessee for Assessment year 2009-10. contains the details of the proceedings in respect of the Assessee for Assessment year 2009-10. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal which was the subject matter of the rectification application (Miscellaneous application No. 57(Asr)/2013) which was allowed and the order dated 31.5.2013 was recalled. 31.5.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal which was the subject matter of the rectification application (Miscellaneous application No. 57(Asr)/2013) which was allowed and the order dated 31.5.2013 was recalled. 3. In these circumstances, in our view, the present appeal has become in fructuous. However, the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant, insisted that the present appeal still survives. Even if we agree with the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant, which we do not,has become in fructuous. However, the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant, insisted that the present appeal still survives. Even if we agree with the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant, which we do not, ITA No.06/2013 Page 1 of 2 the outcome would be the same inasmuch as, the question framed in the present appeal as to whether section 40 (a) (ia) is applicable only on the amount payable and not on the amount actually paid has already been decided by us today itself in ITA No. 3/2016 on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the case M/s Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 2017 SC2502)which has settled the issue. The Supreme Court held that section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 covered not only these cases where the amounts were payable but also those where it was paid. Consequently, whichever way the matter is looked at, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. (Ali Mohammad Magrey) (Badar Durrez Ahmed) Judge Chief Justice Srinagar 27.07.2017Mujtaba Secy