Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur Raj v. Shri Om Prakash Dangayach, C

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 124/2018 1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Jaipur-II, Jaipur Raj. Versus ----Appellant 2. Shri Om Prakash Dangayach, C-18, Takhteshahi Road ,J.l.N. Marg, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat for Mr. R.B. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 03/07/2018 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes anddismissed the appeal of the department. 2.Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantialquestions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the ITATis justified in deletion of disallowance madeu/s 40(a)(ia) by holding that the provisions ofsection 40(a)(ia) as amended by the FinanceAct, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 r.w.s 201(1) are ofclarificatorynatureand,thereforeretrospective in nature, without appreciatingthe fact that the relevant portion of theMemorandum explaining the provisions inFinance Bill, 2012 clearly states that thiscircumstances of the case and in law, the ITATis justified in deletion of disallowance madeu/s 40(a)(ia) by holding that the provisions ofsection 40(a)(ia) as amended by the FinanceAct, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 r.w.s 201(1) are ofclarificatorynatureand,thereforeretrospective in nature, without appreciatingthe fact that the relevant portion of theMemorandum explaining the provisions inFinance Bill, 2012 clearly states that this amendment is to take effect from 1.4.2013and will, accordingly, apply in relation to theA.Y. 2013-14 and subsequent years. 2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the ITATis justified in law in holding the amendment inprovision of section 40(a)(ia) as retrospectivedespite of no such intention of the legislature. 3.The facts of the case are that the case of the assessee wasreopened for assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) readwith section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was framed videorder dt. 6.12.2012. While framing the assessment, the AO foundthat the assessee had made interest payment of M/s. Indiabulls ofRs.65,65,047/- and M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd. of Rs.77,37,237/-and the assessee has not deducted tax as per section 194A of theAct thereby he made disallowance of expenditure by invoking theprovisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added a sum ofRs.1,43,02,284/-. 4.Taking into consideration the observations made by theTribunal which reads as under:- 6. The only effective ground is againstrestricting the disallowance of Rs.65,65,047/-asagainstthedisallowanceofRs.1,43,02,284/- made by the AO by invokingthe provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.The ld. D/R supported the order of the AO andsubmitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justifiedin deleting the disallowance. 6.1 Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assesseesupported the order of the ld. CIT(A) andsubmitted that the ld. CIT(A) has following thebinding precedent. 5.In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreementwith the view taken by the tribunal, therefore, no substantialquestion of law arises. 6.Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S. JHAVERI),J Brijesh 13.