2022 (6) TMI 24 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - validity of reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon - As per assessee once the AO reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve to be quashed as non est leading to annulment of the PCIT's revision orders as well - HELD THAT - There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessing authority had recorded similar reopening reasons in latter twin assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 as well which are very much compiled in the instant paper book. The sole difference is only qua assessee's payments made. We observe in light of above extracted re-opening reasons that the assessing authority had indeed failed to indicate as to under which provision of law in Chapter XVII of the Act the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on her impugned payments. Revenue sought to highlight at this stage that the Pr. CIT has made it clear in the impugned revision directions that the assessee made contractual payments liable for TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant arguments once it is clear that the assessing authority had not specified in the reopening reasons about applicability of the particular statutory provision requiring TDS deduction or for that even suggest that the assessee's payments were in the nature of contractual expenses involving TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar 2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and the Assessing Officer's reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any external help thereby rejecting any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein at a later stage even it is found that at some point of time that the same were very well justifiable. We adopt the very reasoning cause hereinabove to quash all these three reassessments herein framed in 28-03-2013 as non-nest. We order accordingly. We also invoke sublato fundamento cadit opus that once the foundation of reopening is removed, collateral proceedings u/s. 263 in issues also follows the section as having no legs to stand. The assessee's foregoing identical additional substantive ground raised in all these three appeals succeeds thereby rendering all other pleadings on merits as well as validity (regarding applicability of section 147 1st proviso in assessment years i.e. AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08) as infructuous. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging revision directions under section 263 regarding non-deduction of TDS on transport charges, admission of additional substantive ground at a belated stage, validity of primary proceedings in the context of section 263 revision actions, correctness of Assessing Officer's reopening reasons, applicability of TDS provisions, quashing reassessments for non-est, impact on collateral proceedings under section 263.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to three appeals for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, challenging the Pr. CIT-1, Nashik's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue revolves around the revision directions concerning the non-deduction of TDS on transport charges. The assessee contested the revision directions, arguing that the reassessments were framed without examining the TDS disallowance under section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) regarding transport charges. The Tribunal admitted the additional substantive ground raised by the assessee, despite opposition from the CIT-DR, citing relevant case law supporting the consideration of pure questions of law to determine the correct tax liability.

Regarding the validity of primary proceedings in the context of section 263 revision actions, the Tribunal emphasized that defects in primary proceedings could challenge the correctness of revision actions. Citing various precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee could challenge the correctness of primary proceedings concerning the revision actions under section 263.

The Assessing Officer's reopening reasons were scrutinized, particularly in AY 2006-07, which highlighted the non-deduction of TDS on vehicle hire charges. The Tribunal noted that the reopening reasons lacked specificity on the provision requiring TDS deduction, leading to the quashing of all three reassessments as non-est. The Tribunal emphasized that reopening reasons must stand on their own without external assistance, following relevant case law to support its decision.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, quashing the reassessments and rendering other arguments on merits and validity as infructuous. The judgment underscored the importance of foundational validity in primary proceedings and its impact on collateral proceedings under section 263, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.

The detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough consideration of the issues raised, the application of relevant legal principles, and the ultimate decision in favor of the assessee based on the provided arguments and legal precedents.