1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.405 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5(1), C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MANMANDIR ENTERPRISES NO. 36 & 7, 2ND FLOOR SVS COMPLEX PILLAPPA LANE, NAGARATHPET CROSS BANGALORE-560002. RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) --- THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 4/7/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.963/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. 2 (II) ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.963/BANG/201 DATED 4/7/2012 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short) has been preferred by assessee. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment year 2006-07. appeal was admitted by bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2012 on following substantial question of law: Whether tribunal was correct in interpreting that amendment brought in section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 01-04-2010 is retrospective in nature although it was not expressly provided in Act that this amendment to allow payments on which TDS was deposited before due date for 3 filing return, was retrospective in nature?. 2. Facts leading to filing of appeal briefly stated are that assessee is partnership firm which is engaged in business of textiles. assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs.1,13,729/- for Assessment year 2005-06. return was processed under Section 143(1) of Act and case was selected for scrutiny and order was passed under Section 143(3) of Act, by which total income was assessed at Rs.1,42,550/- making addition of Rs.28,815/- towards inadmissible expenses. Subsequently, assessing officer invoked Section 154 of Act and made addition of Rs.6,46,690/- by order dated 14.09.2007, on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of Act. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 14.09.2011 upheld order passed by assessing officer and dismissed appeal. 4 Being aggrieved, revenue approached Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by filing appeal. tribunal by order dated 04.07.2012 held that expenditure is allowable as TDS was deposited by assessee before filing of return and amendment brought in Section 40(a)(ia) is to provide for depositing deducted amount before due date of filing of return and aforesaid provision is retrospective in nature. Being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard learned counsel for revenue at length. We find that issued involved in this appeal is no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of assessee by decision of Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATTA VS. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY, (2018) 404 ITR 654 (SC). aforesaid decision has also been followed by this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE VS. SANTOSH KUMAR 5 SHETTY, (2014) 227 TAXMAN 170 (KARNATAKA). In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, substantial question of law framed by this court is answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, we do not find any merit in this case, same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Income-tax Officer Ward-5(1), Bangalore v. Manmandir Enterprise