Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Chiranji Lal Gagdish Narain, Dausa vs Ito, Dausa on 11 January, 2017
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
M.A. No.148/JP/16
(Arising out of ITA No. 936/JP/2013)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
M/s. Chiranji Lal Jagdish Narain, cuke Income Tax Officer,
New Mandi, Vs. Ward, Dausa.
Dausa.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFC 1424 G
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/01/2017
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. The subject miscellaneous application has been filed by the revenue which is arising out of the order passed by the coordinate bench in I.T.A. No.936/JP/2013 dated 30.11.2015. In its application, the revenue has drawn reference to the Para-5 of the said order dated 30.11.2015 wherein the coordinate bench while disposing off the ground relating to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has held as under:- 2 M.A. No.148/JP/16
Shri Chiranji Lal Jagdish Narain, Dausa "2.5 Ld. DR's proposition deserves merit, consequently the ground about applicability of sec.
40(a)(ia) is set aside and restored back to ld. AO to verify and apply sec. 40(a)(ia) only to amounts remaining payable to RSWC at the year end and not on amount actually paid."
2. Further, it was submitted that the CBDT in Para 4 of the Circular No.10/DV/2013 circulated vide letter F.No.279/Misc./M-61/2012-ITJ (Vol.II) dated 16th December, 2013 on sec. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has directed as under:-
" After careful examination of the issue, the Board is of the considered view that the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also amounts which are payable at any time during the year. The statutory provisions are amply clear and in the context of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act the term "payable" would include "amounts" which are paid during the previous year."
3. In the light of above, it was submitted that the aforesaid circular is equally applicable in this case also and it is prayed that the departmental appeal may be heard and decided on merits.
4. The coordinate bench has discussed the issue regarding disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in Para No.2.3 & 2.4 of its order which are reproduced as under:-
3 M.A. No.148/JP/16
Shri Chiranji Lal Jagdish Narain, Dausa "2.3. Apropos ground no.3 ld. Counsel contends relied on Hon'ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of CIT v Vector Shipping Services 262 CTR 545 for the proposition that sec. 40(a)(ia) as it stood at that time was applicable to only payable i.e. outstanding amounts. The rent is actually paid to RSWC and there was no amount payable at the end of the year. Subsequently a legislative amendment in IT Act has also been made w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to this effect. Therefore, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is uncalled for.
"2.4. Ld. DR qua 3rd ground contends that from the record the fact that rent was actual paid to RSWC in the year and there was nothing payable is not emerging from the record, therefore, this issue may be set aside for necessary verification to AO. Ld. Counsel for assessee has no objection. Ld. DR's proposition deserves merit, consequently the ground about applicability of sec. 40(a)(ia) is set aside and restored back to ld. AO to RSWC at the year end and not on amount actually paid.
5. From the perusal of the coordinate bench decision, it is clear that it has relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. Vector Shipping Services(supra). Further, there is nothing on record to show that the circular no.10/DV/2013 dated 16th December, 2013 was brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench. In any case, the view expressed in the circular is a departmental view which is not 4 M.A. No.148/JP/16 Shri Chiranji Lal Jagdish Narain, Dausa binding on the Tribunal. Given that the coordinate bench has relied on the decision of Vector Shipping Services (supra), we do not think there is any mistake which is apparent on record, which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the light of above, Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is dismissed.
6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼dqy Hkkjr ½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Kul Bharat) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:-11/01/2017.
*Sanjeev.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Shri Chiranji Lal Jagdish Narain, Dausa.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {M.A. No.148/JP/16} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar