Court held that  the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) , as they existed prior to insertion of the second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee’s tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer. In order to cure these shortcomings of the provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, an amendment in law, was made. In view of the well-settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically, the insertion of the second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time when the related legal provision was introduced. The insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from April 1, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 . Accordingly  it was not disputed that the payments made by the assessee to the sub-contractors had been offered to tax in their respective returns of income, uncontroverted by the authorities. There was no actual loss of revenue. Hence S .  40(a)(ia) was not applicable.( AY.2005-06)