Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Excel Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR I.T.A. No : 91 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - V/s - M/s Excel Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Present: Hon�ble Shri Acting Chief Justice RajendraMenon. .Hon�ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R (06/01/2016) As a very short question of law is involved in the matter i.e.as to whether, the tribunal itself could go into various aspectsof the matter and determine the question with regard to dateof deposit of TDS of the assessee prior to or after due date offiling the return, therefore, treating this question to be thequestion of law, we proceed to decide this appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find thatthe learned tribunal in Paragraph-4 of it's impugned orderhas directed as under and for determining the due date ofdeposit of TDS has remanded the matter back to theAssessing Officer : �4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of thecase, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has held that as peramendment in Section 40(a)(ia), if the assessee provesthat the deduction of any tax was paid before the duedate of filing of return and if the TDS amount isdeposited before the due date of filing the return, thenno disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia)of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has directed toverify this claim of the assessee. Therefore, we are ofthe view that the ld.CIT (A) is justified in his action.Our interference is not called for.� 3. As canvassed by Shri Lal, the tribunal itself being a finalappellate court with regard to factual aspect of the mattercould have conducted the enquiry and fact finding exerciseand for this purpose, remanding of the matter is notnecessary, as remand of the matter would further result infiling of the appeals. All these could be avoided if the tribunalconducted it's exercise, instead of remanding the matter. 4. That being so, we allow this appeal, quash the orderpassed by the tribunal for remand of the matter and hold thatthe tribunal itself shall determine the question as indicated inParagraph-4 of it's order. 5. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed anddisposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE nd (SMT. ANJULI PALO)JUDGE