Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In W.P.No.24901/2022, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or declaration that the time for deposit of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 r/w. Rule 30 of the IT Rules stands extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022.

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:4614 extended as per Section 139 rws. 201(1) rws. 40(a)(ia) rws.43B of the IT Act, that is upto the date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 Annexure-F1 and Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2022) SCC Online SC 1423 Annexure-F2 dated 12.10.2022.

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC:4614 ITR 117] and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489 : (2009) 319 ITR 306]

33. Hence, in light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Motors [Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , we are of the view that the amended provision of Section 40(a)(i-a) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(i-a) was inserted i.e. with effect from Assessment Year 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates. As the developments with regard to the section recorded above show that the amendment was curative in nature, it should be given retrospective operation as if the amended provision existed even at the time of its insertion. Since the assessee has filed its returns on 1-8-2005 i.e. in accordance with the due date under the provisions of Section 139 of the IT Act, hence, is allowed to claim the benefit of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40(a)(i-a) of the IT Act.

9. Similarly, in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 - (2023) 6 SCC 451, the Apex Court held as under:

- 29 -

NC: 2024:KHC:4614

50. This condition i.e. of payment of actual amount on or before the due date to enable deduction, continued for 14 years. By the amendment of 2003, the second proviso was deleted. This Court interpreted the law, in the light of these developments, in Alom Extrusions [CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489] . The Court considered the effect of omission of the second proviso, and observed as follows : (SCC pp. 493-96, paras 9-11, 15, 18-19 & 22-