2019 (4) TMI 1491 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - debatable issue - alleged that payment to Noida Software Technology, TDS deducted @2% in place of 10% - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS assessment order u/s. 201(1)(1A) on record was not taken into consideration and thus non application of mind by AO thus being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - HELD THAT - Tribunal came to the conclusion that the question of deducting the tax at source under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was highly debatable issue and that, therefore, the Commissioner was not correct in exercising revisional power. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner challenged by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the issues related to TDS deduction and applicability of relevant provisions.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was challenged by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner believed that the Assessee should have deducted tax at source while reimbursing charges for bank guarantee commission. However, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, deeming the matter as highly debatable.

2. The Tribunal's decision was based on two key questions. Firstly, whether the Assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was an error prejudicial to the revenue, considering the non-consideration of the TDS assessment order under Section 201(1)(1A) of the IT Act. Secondly, whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the order under Section 263 due to the unverified agreement between the parties involved, which the Assessing Officer could not confirm.

3. The Tribunal's reasoning for overturning the Commissioner's order was detailed and thorough. It highlighted that the payment made to a specific party for services did not fall under the category requiring a higher TDS deduction rate, as per the agreement between the parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the services provided did not necessitate a higher TDS deduction, as it was not technical in nature, aligning more with the provisions of Section 194C of the IT Act.

4. Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced a decision by the Calcutta High Court to support the position that in cases of differing opinions on the taxability of payments, the Assessee could be declared as defaulters under Section 201 of the Act, but disallowance under Section 49(a)(ia) was not warranted. This argument strengthened the Tribunal's stance that the issue of TDS deduction in this case was indeed debatable, thus rendering the Commissioner's revisional power invalid.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that they found no error in the Tribunal's view. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the Assessee. The judgment underscores the significance of a thorough analysis of the facts and legal provisions in determining the correctness of tax-related decisions and the applicability of revisional powers under the Income Tax Act, 1961.