2021 (7) TMI 239 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - assessee paid transport charges without deducting tax at source - HELD THAT - although the assessee has brought to the notice of the ld. PCIT that as per the Hon ble ITAT decision M/S. SUGARCHEM 2018 (2) TMI 1457 - ITAT MUMBAI no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) even if there is a violation under section 194C(7) of the Act and when two views are possible on this issue ,proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be initiated etc., the ld PCIT set aside the assessment order u/s. 263 without meeting the assessee s objections legally. When two views are possible on an issue, if the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, in this case, the decision of the A O has been subsequently upheld by two different decisions of the Hon ble ITAT, therefore , the decision taken by the assessing officer does not fall within the scope of section 263 of the Act and hence order of the PCIT is unsustainable in law. Therefore, we hold that the order passed u/s. 263 is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal, Setting aside of assessment order u/s 263, Compliance with TDS provisions, Jurisdiction of PCIT u/s 263, Interpretation of sections 194C(6) and 194C(7), Prejudice to revenue, Two possible views on tax matters.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal: The appellant filed the appeal 95 days late, attributing the delay to complexities in understanding the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, emphasizing that it was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond their control. The delay was ultimately condoned by the tribunal.

2. Setting aside of assessment order u/s 263: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2014-15, directing the AO to reframe the assessment after making specific additions. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 without satisfying the conditions of error in the original assessment order and prejudice to the revenue. The tribunal held that the PCIT's order was erroneous, unjustified, and not sustainable in law, ultimately setting it aside.

3. Compliance with TDS provisions: The main issue revolved around the appellant's payment of transport charges without deducting tax at source, claiming compliance with section 194C(6) by obtaining PAN from transporters. The PCIT contended that compliance with section 194C(7) was also necessary, and the failure to furnish details under this section rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the tribunal held that the PCIT's interpretation was incorrect, citing precedents and emphasizing that compliance with 194C(6) alone was sufficient to avoid disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

4. Jurisdiction of PCIT u/s 263: The tribunal scrutinized the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, noting that the PCIT failed to address the appellant's objections and legal arguments adequately. The tribunal emphasized that when two views are possible on a tax matter, the AO's decision cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, as upheld by relevant case law.

5. Interpretation of sections 194C(6) and 194C(7): The tribunal delved into the interplay between sections 194C(6) and 194C(7), emphasizing that non-compliance with 194C(7) did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous, especially when the appellant had fulfilled the requirements of 194C(6) and provided necessary PAN details. The tribunal underscored that the PCIT's insistence on compliance with 194C(7) was misplaced and not legally tenable.

6. Two possible views on tax matters: The tribunal highlighted the principle that when two reasonable interpretations exist regarding a tax issue, the AO's decision cannot be faulted under section 263. By referencing relevant case law and decisions, the tribunal emphasized that the AO's decision, which was subsequently upheld by the ITAT, did not warrant revision under section 263. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the PCIT's order.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the PCIT's order was unsustainable in law, and the appellant's contentions regarding compliance with TDS provisions were valid based on legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.