2018 (12) TMI 573 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 263 - Non deduction of tds u/s 194J - payment to Mahua Basu Mallick for displaying articles towards Cancel Awareness Programme in Bengali language pursuant to dictations given by the assessee in English - Held that - This is nothing but a payment made for translation of articles from English to Bengali. This in our considered opinion does not require any professional skill so as to fall within the ken of provisions of section 194J of the Act. The provisions of 194J of the Act are not attracted in the facts of the instant case with regard to the subject mentioned payment of 96, 000/-. The assessee had produced the entire bills vouchers bank statements books of accounts details of professional fees before the AO which were duly examined by the ld. AO and which fact is also mentioned at page 2 of the assessment order. While this is so it cannot be said that the AO had not made any enquiry regarding this issue while framing the assessment. AO had taken a possible view on the matter and the CIT is only trying to substitute his own view against the view taken already by the AO by invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 which in our considered opinion is not permissible - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act in respect of payments made to an individual for a Cancel Awareness Programme.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Revisionary Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act
The appeal questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding payments made to an individual for a specific program. The Commissioner sought to disallow a payment of ?96,000 made by the assessee to an individual without deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Act. The assessee argued that the payment was for translation services and not professional fees, thus falling outside the purview of section 194J. The Commissioner contended that the articles displayed were related to the advancement of the assessee's profession. The Tribunal noted that the payment was for translating articles from English to Bengali, which did not require professional skill as per section 194J. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had provided all necessary documents and details to the Assessing Officer, who had examined them before finalizing the assessment. It was concluded that the Assessing Officer had made a possible view on the matter, and the Commissioner was attempting to substitute his own view by invoking revisionary powers, which was deemed impermissible by law. The Tribunal referenced established legal precedents and High Court rulings to support its decision to quash the revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act.

Outcome:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and quashing the revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.