9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstood the direction given by the Ld.CIT u/s 263. Therefore, the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.37/Viz/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : ShriG.V.N.Hari, AR For The Respondent : Smt V.Madhuvani, DR ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the assesseeagainst the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr. CIT], Vijayawada dated 12.01.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this case, assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13.12.2010 on total income of ₹ 5,11,864/-. The Ld.CIT, Vijayawada has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 due to the following discrepancies noticed by him in the revision proceedings: (a) As per VAT returns, the sales were declared at ₹ 3,03,10,204/-, whereas in the income tax return, the sales were admitted at ₹ 2,97,06,705/- resulting in difference of ₹ 6,03,499/-. (b) As per P L a/c, the VAT paid was ₹ 9,50,983/- and as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 2.4 Accordingly, the Ld. CIT held that the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 13.12.2010 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interst of revenue and set aside the assessment order and directed the A.O. to redo the assessment denovo after giving opportunity to the assessee. explanation filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT satisfied that there was no difference with regard to the sales admitted in the VAT return and the P L account, hence, the issue with regard to the difference in sales amounting to ₹ 6,03,499/- was dropped. 2.2. With regard to the second issue of difference in payment of VAT amounting to ₹ 7,56,359/-, it was remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to allow the claim after verification of the payment. 2.3. With regard to the third issue of non deduction of tax at source, the Ld.CIT remitted the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the payments liable for TDS and apply the provisions of 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 2.4 Accordingly, the Ld. CIT held that the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 13.12.2010 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interst of revenue and set aside the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 18.03.2013. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that in the orders u/s 263 it was clearly mentioned that the assessee had accepted the non deduction of tax at source and assured to pay the tax with interest and accordingly directed the A.O. to make the addition. The A.O. instead of making the entire sum of ₹ 33,63,840/- as addition and acted beyond the jurisdiction and allowed the expenditure incurred under the head printing and binding charges stating that the provisions of TDS were not applicable, hence issued the show cause notice to the assessee and the assessee filed the objections. The Pr.CIT has gone through the explanation of the assessee. Being not convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the Ld.Pr.CIT set aside the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 29.01.2014 and directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment. that the assessing officer did not follow the directions of the Ld.CIT u/s 263 dated 18.03.2013. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that in the orders u/s 263 it was clearly mentioned that the assessee had accepted the non deduction of tax at source and assured to pay the tax with interest and accordingly directed the A.O. to make the addition. The A.O. instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the freight charges u/s 40(a)(ia) to the extent of ₹ 2,56,961/-. Since the assessing officer has correctly followed the instructions of CIT and made proper examination, there is no case for making the revision u/s 263 in the second round and requested to quash the order passed u/s 263 by the Pr.CIT, Vijayawada on 12.01.2016. 6. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Pr.CIT. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The CIT in the original order passed u/s 263 on 18.03.2013 in para No.5.2 directed the assessing officer to verify all such payments which are liable for TDS and apply the provisions of 40(a)(ia). Even the assessee also accepted that some payments were made without making the TDS. For ready reference, we extract the relevant paragraph of the order passed u/s 263 dated 18.03.2013. 5.2. The third issue in this case is that the assessee had paid ₹ 33,63,840/- towards binding charges, computer maintenance and freight charges etc However, no TDS was made on the above mentioned payments. The assessee had furnished the details of the above payments Q111,8-0.3-2013. As per the details furnished the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
