2010 (10) TMI 575 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - disallowance u/s 40A(3) - in the course of revision of assessments being considered by the Assessing Officer based on the orders of the Commissioner under section 263, the assessee can produce proof and claim eligible benefit under the provisions of the Act and Rules - So far as the validity of the orders issued under section 263 for considering the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) also we feel the finding of the Tribunal is correct because the basis adopted by the Tribunal for upholding section 263 order in the case of section 40A(3) applies to this case as well inasmuch as the assessee has not deducted any tax payable in terms of the above provision on the payment to transport contractors - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Validity of suo motu revisional order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2000-01 to 2006-07.

Analysis:
The primary issue in the connected appeals filed by the assessee pertains to the validity of the suo motu revisional order issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner directed revision of assessment due to the Assessing Officer's failure to consider disallowances under section 40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia) for certain years. The assessee, a rice merchant, had made cash purchases exceeding the limit under section 40A(3) for all years. Additionally, no tax at source was paid for inward freight charges in 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Commissioner, using his revisional power, directed the Assessing Officer to verify these issues. The assessee contended that the Commissioner cannot exercise revisional power post disposal of appeals, citing clause (c) to the Explanation to section 263(1). However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the disallowances, making the orders erroneous in law. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's orders under section 263, emphasizing the importance of proper application of tax provisions during assessment.

Regarding the merits, the Court refrained from delving into the contentions raised by the appellant, allowing the assessee to claim eligible benefits during the revision of assessments based on the Commissioner's orders. The Court upheld the Commissioner's order under section 263 for considering disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax payable on payments to transport contractors. The Tribunal's decision on this matter aligns with its stance on section 40A(3) disallowances, emphasizing the necessity of proper consideration of tax provisions during assessments. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed, permitting the appellant to present arguments on the merits during the assessment revision process as directed by the Commissioner's orders under section 263.