Vishwas Builders v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru
[Citation -2020-LL-0729-18]

Citation 2020-LL-0729-18
Appellant Name Vishwas Builders
Respondent Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/07/2020
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest of justice and equity • professional charges • condition precedent • due date
Bot Summary: The learned advocates appearing for the parties in unison would fairly submit that issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in 404 ITR page 654 and same has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.422/2012 disposed of on 29.06.2020. This appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not canceling the order under Section 263 when condition precedent for invoking 263 was absent 3 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Section 40 as amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1st April 2010 do not have retrospective effect 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was possible when the appellant failed to deduct and remit tax on contract and professional charges payable within due date in the respective months even when the provision for deduction was made in the month of March and remitted to Government account before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act 4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, issue involved in this appeal being no more res integra in the light of law declared by the Apex Court referred to supra, this appeal stands disposed of accordingly by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of assessee and against the revenue.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2020 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.51 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S VISHWAS BUILDERS VISHWAS CROWN NEAR COCHIN BAKERY KANKANADY MANGALORE 575 002 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. ABDUL RAUF PUTTIGE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF SRI.E.M. SHAFI APPELLANT (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV. FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R.BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR NANDI GUDDA ROAD ATTAVARA, MANGALURU 575 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.10.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.132/BANG/2011, FOR 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, AND ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER OF ITAT BEARING ITA NO.132/B/2011 DATED 19.10.2011 ANNEXURE- , IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal filed by assesee is directed against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.132/Bang/2011 (Annexure A). 2. learned advocates appearing for parties in unison would fairly submit that issue involved in present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of Apex Court rendered in 404 ITR page 654 and same has been followed by Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.422/2012 disposed of on 29.06.2020. 3. This appeal came to be admitted to consider following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether Tribunal was justified in not canceling order under Section 263 when condition precedent for invoking 263 was absent? 3 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 40 (a) (ia) as amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1st April 2010 do not have retrospective effect? 3. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of Act was possible when appellant failed to deduct and remit tax on contract and professional charges payable within due date in respective months even when provision for deduction was made in month of March and remitted to Government account before due date for filing return under Section 139(1) of Act? 4. In light of submissions made by learned counsel for parties, issue involved in this appeal being no more res integra in light of law declared by Apex Court referred to supra, this appeal stands disposed of accordingly by answering substantial questions of law in favour of assessee and against revenue. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MH/- Vishwas Builders v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru
Report Error