ORDER : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 5th April 2016 in ITA No. 932/AHD/2012 for A.Y 2007-2008, by which the Tribunal has allowed the said Appeal preferred by the assessee and has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 75,63,523/-, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law : [A] "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in directing the AO to delete addition made on account of disallowance u/s. 40[a] (ia) of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that the amendment to Section 40 [a](ia) is clarificatory and not to be treated retrospectively w.e.f 1st April 2005?" 2. The facts leading to the present Appeal in nutshell are as under :- 2.1 That, the assessee filed return of income for A.Y 2007-2008 declaring total income of Rs. 5,75,188/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made payments to the tune of Rs. 1,41,99,565 which were liable for TDS, however, the Ledger account of the TDS payable discloses that the assessee has shown liability of Rs. 1,69,336/- only. The Assessing Officer noticed, on verification of the details, that the total sundry creditor outstanding was Rs. 89,27,708/- out of which, the creditors identified which are liable for TDS amounts to Rs. 47,31,603/- on which TDS was to be deducted and paid before filing the return of income. It was found that the total expenses which were debited in the Profit & Loss account of Rs. 1,41,99,565/- minus the creditors, who were liable for TDS was Rs. 47,31,603/-, and therefore, the balance of Rs. 94,67,962/- which was liable for TDS and on which the assessee has to deduct TDS on the amount of Rs. 94,67,962/- which was to be paid in the Government account before March 2007. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 89,67,962/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s. 40[a] (ia) of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer passed under Section 40[a](ia) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 89,67,962/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s. 40[a] (ia) of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer passed under Section 40[a](ia) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. The learned CIT [A] restricted the disallowance u/s. 40[a](ia) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 75,63,523/- by observing that the amount of Rs. 75,63,523/- was deposited by the assessee after close of the accounting year. 4. On an appeal, considering the amended provisions of Section 40 [a](ia) of the Act, more particularly the expression added to Section 40 [a](ia) of the Act and applying the same retrospectively, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has deleted the addition made u/s. 40[a](ia) of the Act by observing that the income amounting to Rs. 75,63,523/- was deducted and deposited by the assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in deleting the addition made u/s. 40[a](ia) of the Act, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforestated question of law. 6. We have heard Shri K.M. Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. 7. Now, so far as question proposed is concerned i.e., whether explanation to Section 40[a](ia) of the Act is having retrospective effect or not - is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 412 of 2013 and other allied matters, by which it is held that the amendment made under Section 40 [a](ia) of the Act, brought out by the Finance Act 2010 w.e.f 1st April 2010 is having retrospective effect. It is reported that the said decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by Shri K.M Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 412 of 2013 and other allied matters, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance made under Section 40 [a](ia) of the Act. 9. No substantial question of law arises. 9. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.