2019 (10) TMI 8 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - payments made to the licensor for obtaining TV signals for cable TV Network was liable for TDS u/s 194C - whether payments covered u/s 40A(3) had been made on account of account payee cheques - HELD THAT - As relying on M/S KURUKSHETRA DARPANS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2008 (3) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA there was a wrong assumption of facts and law in this case by the Assessing Officer because of which he did not make the disallowance u/s 40A(ia) of the Act. It is also apparent that the Assessing Officer has also ignored the observations made by the Auditor in his report that the assessee had not given any certificate to the effect that all the payments covered u/s 40A(3) have been made by account payee cheques. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. PCIT in holding that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Validity of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding non-deduction of TDS on pay channel subscription.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an appeal by the assessee challenging the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla, exercising revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue revolves around the non-deduction of tax at source on payments made for pay channel subscriptions. The Principal Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer had erred in not applying the correct legal provisions and precedents, specifically overlooking the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh assessment.

The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had indeed applied his mind by raising queries and verifying documents during assessment. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer's decision was based on a possible interpretation of the law, citing the discussion of relevant case law by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal. However, the Departmental Representative supported the Principal Commissioner's order.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the facts of the case differed from the precedents cited. The Tribunal specifically noted the distinction between a cable operator providing signals to customers and a scenario involving the distribution of packed signals to cable operators. The assessee acknowledged that their case aligned with the precedent set by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the erroneous assumptions made by the Assessing Officer and the failure to comply with legal requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Principal Commissioner's order as valid. The judgment highlights the importance of correctly applying legal provisions and precedent in tax assessments to ensure compliance and protect the interests of revenue.