Shriram Krishnaji Surve,, Satara v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,, Satara

ITA 978/PUN/2017 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 97824514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AEPPS6618R
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 978/PUN/2017
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Shriram Krishnaji Surve,, Satara
Respondent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,, Satara
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 24-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 16-11-2017
Next Hearing Date 16-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 16-11-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 19-04-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE . BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY JM . / ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE KOYANA PRASAD OPP. KRISHNA HOSPITAL P.B. ROAD KARAD SATARA 415 110 PAN : AEPPS6618R . /APPELLANT VS. ACIT SATARA CIRCLE SATARA . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.11.2017 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A)-4 PUNE DATED 20-02-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0. THE APPEAL HAS A BACKGROUND OF RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL ARE EXT RACTED AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE GROUN D OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IN A.Y. 2005-06 S INCE STATUS INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT INCLUDED IN S.194C(2) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 00 00 000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASS ESSEE UNDER MISCONCEPTION OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE COMMITTED A MIS TAKE ON WRONGFUL ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 2 ADVISE THAT THOUGH IT PERTAINED TO A.Y. 2005-06 BUT SHOULD BE PAID IN A.Y. 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED TH E AMOUNT. THE SAME WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEPOSITED. THIS IS AN UNJUS T ENRICHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE SU ITABLE DIRECTIONS BE ISSUED TO LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THIS CASE INCLU DE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT WORKS. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF I NCOME ON 30-10- 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 31 83 800/- FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. AT THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSED INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS.1 36 53 600/- VIDE AOS ORDER DATED 29-12-2011. SUBSEQUENTLY THIS ORDER OF THE AO WAS RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SATARA VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10 -06-2014 U/S.154 OF THE ACT. AFTER RECTIFICATION THE TOTAL INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS.2 36 53 600/- AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSED INCO ME OF RS.1 36 53 600/-. IN THE PROCESS THE AO ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE BY RUPEES ONE CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLO WANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AS DISCUSSED IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER. 4. BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE SAID CLAIM OF RS.1 CRORE INCLUDE THAT IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED VARIOUS ITEM S OF EXPENDITURE (I.E.RS.76 06 900 + RS.14 62 250/- + RS.14 89 640) AMOUNTING TO RS.1 05 58 580/-. ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE TDS WH ILE MAKING OR CREDITING THE SAID PAYMENTS. AO DISALLOWED THE SAM E AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA NO.2.7 4.2 AND 5.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06 DATED 10-12-2007. IN THE SAID ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AO INVOKED THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION. SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE SAID ADDITIONS STAND DELETED BY TH E CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA N O.1207/PN/2010 ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 3 ALONG WITH CO NO.62/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 17-05-2012 IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. 5. THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE SAME HOL DING THAT THE TDS PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES UPTO 01-06-2007. THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C (1)(K) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE FROM THE A.Y. 2008-09 ONWARDS AND TH EY ARE INAPPLICABLE TO THE A.Y. 2005-06. FOR THIS PROPOSI TION THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA JUGLUBHAI LONARI VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2920/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 05-10-2011. THUS SOF ARAS THE FACTS ARE CONCERNED THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS.1 05 58 580/- ARE OUTSIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 6. IN THE CURRENT A.Y. 2009-10 WHILE FILING THE RET URN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME REDUCED FROM THE INCOME AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 CRORE. IN THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME THE ASSESSEE NARRATES THE SAID CLAIM BY STATING EXPENSES OF A.Y . 2005-06 WITHOUT TDS MADE. THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS RELEVANT. THE RELEVANT PART IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE NAME OF ASSESSEE : SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE FATHERS NAME : KRISHNAJI RAMCHANDRA SURVE ADDRESS : 269/1 GALA NO.1 KOYANA PRASA D MALAKAPUR KARAD KARAD 415 110 DATE OF BIRTH : 18-12-1970 STATUS : INDIVIDUAL PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO.:AEPPS6618R PREVIOUS YEAR ENDE D ON 31-03-2009 WARD/CIRCLE/RANGE : CIRCLE DC SATARA ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2009-10 ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 4 COMPUTATION OF INCOME PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION NET PROFIT/LOSS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT 17842698.00 ADD. DEPRECIATION TAKEN SEPARATELY 2057545.00 19900243.00 LESS. DEPRECIATION 2058430.00 EXPENSE OF A.Y. 05-06 WITHOUT TDS MADE 10000000.00 12058430.00 7841813.00 ADJUSTMENT IN TAX AUDIT DISALLOWED U/S.40 2057056.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 150000.00 2207056.00 10048869.00 REMARK : 1. STOCK IS TAKEN AT THE YEAR END AND VALU ED AT MARKET OR PURCHASE PRICE WHICHEVER IS LESS 2. TAX AUDIT AND RETURN FILING DATE EXTENDED TO 31- 10-200 FOR SATARA DISTRICT THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO EXPENSE OF A.Y. 05-06 WITHO UT TDS MADE WHICH IS SUPPLIED WITH EMPHASIS. 7. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 CRORE IS UNDISPUTEDLY A PART OF TH E SAID SUM OF RS.1 05 58 580/- REFERRED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTS WITHOUT SEEKING ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASS ESSEE THE ASSESSMENT IN 2009-10 WAS COMPLETED ON 29-12-2011. ON FINDING THE MISTAKE OF ALLOWING THE SAID EXPENSES OF RS.1 05 58 580/- AS DEDUCTION IN BOTH A.Y. 2005-06 AS WELL AS A.Y. 2009-10 THE AO ISSUED TH E NOTICE U/S.154 OF THE ACT (PAGE 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK) ON 26-12- 12 AGAIN ON 11-03-2014 DUE TO CHANGE OF INCUMBENCY TO THE ASSESSE E. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED OR COMMUNICATED AND THE CONTENTS OF WHICH ARE EXTRACTED IN PAGE 3 OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER (SUPRA). IN REPLY THE AS SESSEE RESPONDED BY FILING A LETTER DATED 09-05-2014 AND REQUES TED FOR MORE TIME FOR FILING REPLY. THERE ARE OTHER LETTERS ISSUED BY THE A O WHICH WERE RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING FOR MORE TIME SOMETIM ES OR FILED PART- CLARIFICATIONS OTHER TIMES ETC. IN THE PART REPLIES THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE TDS ON THE SAID PAYMENTS WAS PAID IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM WAS MADE FOR DEDUC TION OF ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 5 EXPENDITURE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE A.Y. 2009- 10. HOWEVER ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SAID CLAIM HAS NOTHI NG TO DO WITH THE PROFITS OF THIS YEAR. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE U NDER DISCUSSION IS A DEBATABLE ONE AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS OUTSIDE THE P URVIEW OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. EVENTUALLY THE AO REJECTED THE SAID R EPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECTIFIED HIS ORDER BY STATING THE FOLLOWING : THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONS I DERED . THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN PARA 1 & 2 AND PARA 3 ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY. AT ONE PLACE IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO D E DUCTION OF RS. 1 00 00 000/ - U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE A . Y . 2009- 10 AS HE HAD MADE TDS ON THIS AMOUNT AND C OMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECT IO N 194C(2) OF THE SAID ACT WHEREAS IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S EC TION 194C (2) WE R E NOT APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE FOR THE ASSTT. YEA R 2005-06 AND DEDUCTION S HOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THAT YEAR ALSO AS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE IS WI L LING TO ENJOY THE BENEF I T OF DEDUCT I ON OF RS . 1 00 00 000/- IN BOTH THE ASSTT YEAR S I . E . 2005 - 06 AND 2009-10 ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE ISSUE IS DEB ATABLE . IN FACT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY SECOND OPINION THAT ANY DEDU CTION ON ACCOUNT O F EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS AC T IVITIES CAN BE CLAIMED AND ALLOWED ONLY ON C E . I N THE IN S TAN T CASE SINCE THE DEDUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN ASSTT . YE A R 2005 - 06 THI S AMOUNT SHOU L D NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED A S DEDUC T ION A G AIN WHIL E C O MP UTING T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT. YEA R 2009 - 10. BEING SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN ALLOWIN G THE DEDUCTION OF RS.1 00 00 000/- AT THE TIME OF COMPUTING TOTAL INC OME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS OF A.Y . 2005-06 & A.Y. 2009-10 THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 29-12-2011 IS AMENDED AND TOTAL IS RECOMPUTED AS UNDER : 1 TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME AS PER ORDER DATED 29-12-2011 1 36 53 600 2 ADD DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 1 00 00 000 3 TOTAL INCOME 2 36 53 600 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) ON 29-12-2011 IS AMENDED U/S.154(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS ABOVE AND TOTAL INCOME IS RECOMPUTED OF RS.2 36 53 600/-. CHARGE TAX & INTER EST AS PER LAW. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE CHALLAN AND COPY OF THE ORDER. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HEARD THE CASE AND CONSIDERE D THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 17-02-2017 AND OTHER S AND EVENTUALLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE REA SONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE SAME READS AS UNDER : ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 6 5.3 DECISION : I HAVE PERUSED THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS QUOTED ABOVE CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT BY REFERRING TO THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) 194C(1)(K) OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE DECISIONS OF DEL ETION OF ADDITION BY LD. CIT(A)-III PUNE DULY APPROVED OF SUCH DELETION BY THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE FOR AY. 2005-06 STATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE RE- ITERATED HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS PAY MENTS TO CONTRACTOR OF RS.1 00 00 000/- IN A.Y. 2005-06 IN THE YEAR WHEN SUCH EXPENDITURE INCURRED AN AGAIN IN AY. 2009-10 ON THE BASIS OF T HE AMENDMENT TO THE FINANCE ACT 2008 W.E . F 2005-06 FOR ON THE BASIS OF DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE SAID AMOUNT IN AY. 2009-10 ITSELF. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN AY. 2005-06 WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO BUT IN TURN WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL. THE CLAIM OF EXPEN DITURE WAS ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2005-06 IN FINALITY IS NOT DISPUTED. SUCH A C LAIM OF EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE MADE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ALL OWED AS EXPENDITURE IN A.Y. 2005-06. ALLOWING OF SUCH CLAIM OF EXPENDI TURE TWICE TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION WHICH IN NO CASE IS PERMITTED UND ER ANY LAW. SUCH AN ILLOGICAL AND BASELESS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CAN I N NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE ACCEPTED AND ADHERE TO IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE APPE LLANT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE EVEN AFTER GIVING THE EFFECT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN A.Y. 2005-06. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 20 08 W.E.F. 01-04-2005 THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE IDE NTICAL EXPENDITURE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WHICH WAS ALREADY ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2005-06 AS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ONLY BASELESS BUT ALSO AGAINST PR INCIPLE OF ANY LAW. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT SUCH A MISTAKE IF AT AL L CANNOT BE RECTIFIED U/S.154 OF THE ACT AS APPARENT MISTAKE BEING HIGHL Y DEBATABLE IS ALSO EQUALLY BASELESS AND ARBITRARY. WHEN THE APPEAL EF FECT WAS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND THE ADDITION SO MADE OF RS. 1 00 00 000/- WAS ALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF THE APPEAL EFFECT THE CORRESP ONDING ACTION OF THE DOUBLE CLAIM OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN A.Y. 2009-10 WAS NECESS ARILY REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED BY THE AO BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT. IF SUCH A MISTAKE IS NOT APPARENT MISTAKE NO MISTAKE WOULD B E RECTIFIABLE UNDER THE SAID SECTION. I THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE AO IN PASSING A RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S.54 OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS TAXING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 00 00 000/- BY RES ORTING TO SUCH ACTION WHICH WAS WITHIN THE FULL AMBIT OF THE SAID PROVISI ONS. NO INTERFERENCE AOS ORDER IS CALLED FOR GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AGAINST H IM THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE GROUNDS ALREADY EXTRACTE D ABOVE. 10. IN CONNECTION WITH GROUND NO.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 AS SUCH MANDATE IS INAPPLIC ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 194 OF THE ACT. ON THIS ISSUE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF DCIT VS. ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 7 SRI SURVE SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI VIDE ITA NO.1207/PN/2010 AND CO NO.62/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 17-05-2012. AS SUCH TRIBUNA L ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES OWN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON THIS ISSUE. THE REFORE THIS GROUND IS ALREADY ANSWERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND HENCE THE SAID GROUND DOES NOT CALL FOR ADJUDICATION. A CCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 11. REFERRING TO GROUND NO.2 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SUITABLE DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES TO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE PROCEEDING S BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE LD. COUNSEL IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID DIRECTION FILE D THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO.4 OF HIS SUBMISSION ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 4. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2 009-10 WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) THE RECTIFICATION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED MAKING ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT. THE FURTHER INSTRUC TIONS BE ISSUED TO CANCEL THE RECTIFICATION ORDER SINCE RECTIFICATION PROCEED INGS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE ON THE GROUND THE ISSUE IN DEBATABLE AND SECONDLY ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE AO WHEN THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 12. ON ENQUIRY FROM THE BENCH ON THE EXACT NATURE OF TH E DIRECTION TO AO AND HOW THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW O F THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO CLARITY AS TO WHAT IS THE DEBATABLE ISSUE AND WHY THE RECTIFICATION ORDER NEEDS CANCELLATION. THEREFORE HOW THE IS SUE IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS UNCLEAR. AS SUCH NO FORMAL GROUND IS RAISED BEFORE US RELATING TO THE DEBATABILITY NATURE OF A NY ISSUE. WE DID NOT GET REQUISITE ANSWER AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE IS QUA LIFIED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF RS.1 CRORE WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED ACTUALLY IN A.Y. 2005-06. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE EXPLAINED THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MENTIONED THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 8 DEDUCTION OF RS.1 CRORE IN BOTH THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND A.Y. 2 009-10. THE CLAIM IS FINALLY ALLOWED BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIO N IS DELETED BY THE CIT(A)/ITAT. AS SUCH THE CLAIM IS REPEATED IN A.Y. 2009 -10 ON THE GROUND OF PAYMENT OF TDS ON THE SAID RS. 1 CRORE. PRIMA -FACIE IT IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND A SETTLED LAW THAT SUCH CLAIM OF DOUBLE DE DUCTION IS NOT PERMITTED. REFERRING TO THE NATURE OF CLAIM IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT MEREL Y SOME AMOUNT OF TDS IS DONE WHICH IS OTHERWISE NEVER TO BE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS SUCH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF R S.1 CRORE FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A.Y. 2009-10 IS ABSOLUTELY UNSUSTAINABL E IN LAW. THIS IS A CONSPICUOUS ERRONEOUS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION AND THERE IS NO DEBATE/DISPUTE ABOUT THE SAME. 14. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THERE IS NO DISPUT E ABOUT THE FACT OF MAKING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1 CRORE BY THE ASSES SEE IN BOTH A.Y. 2005-06 AS WELL AS IN THE A.Y. 2009-10. IT IS A CASE OF DOUBLE CLAIM IN TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN PRINCIPLE SUCH CLAIM IS N EVER PERMITTED UNDER THE STATUTE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THA T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY CLAIMED EXPEND ITURE AS AN ALLOWABLE ONE IN THAT YEAR. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE REFE RENCE MADE BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND FIND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR ADMISSION AND ADJ UDICATION. IN OUR VIEW THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATING THE IS SUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE RECTIFICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT THAT TOO FOR THE A.Y. 2009- 10. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT MAKING OF SOME AMOUNT OF PAYMEN T OF TDS TO THE REVENUE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDU CTION OF RS.1 CRORE IN THE A.Y. 2009-10. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE ITA NO.978/PUN/2017 SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE 9 CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LLOWABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THIS ASPECT WE FIND NO DEBA TE ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE WE FIND NO NEED FOR ISSUE OF ANY DIRECTION TO THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 24 TH NOVEMBER 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT(A) - 4 PUNE CIT - 4 PUNE A BENCH PUNE; / GUARD FILE.