9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such tanker hire charges as required by the provision of section 194 C. He therefore invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and made disallowance of Rs. 1,12,73,615/- on account of tanker hire charges in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18.12.2007 whereby he assessed the total income at Rs. 1,32,96,153/-. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the assesee before ld. CIT(A) disputing inter alia the disallowance made by AO u/s 40(a)(ia) and the same was disposed off by ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 16.01.2009 whereby he confirmed the disallowance made by AO u/s 40(a)(ia). Thereafter assessment for the year under consideration was reopened by the AO and in the return filed in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148, additional income of Rs. 2,74,469/- was offered by the assesee on account of undisclosed investment with interest thereon. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 vide order dated 24.12.2010, further addition of Rs. 93,038/- was made by AO on account of undisclosed bank interest and the total income of the assessee was finally determined by him at Rs. 1,35,13,044/-. Thereafter an application u/s 154 was moved b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to begin with.. This is not a correct procedure as it does not indicate independence of finding or order. The Ld AO should have reworked the assessed income in scheduler matter showing breakup of head of income, additions made, reasons therefore and quantum thereof in the newly framed order u/s 147. In doing so, it was permissible for him to be guided by the Ld CIT(A) order passed against order u/ s 143(3), in choosing whether to add or not to add those items which were added in the 143(3) order but deleted by CIT(A). In not doing so, the first step/pedestal of the reassessment order u/ s 147/143(3) suffers from technical and apparent mistake defect. In any case, the assessed income u/s 147/143(3) contains the amount of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 1,12,73,815/- being alleged payment for works contract. Thus, this reassessment order can be rectified to remedy any anomaly arising out of apparent mistake of law or fact, existing in the impugned order and concerning the impugned addition. In the impugned order u/s 154 dated 12.12.2014, the AO held that the order u/s 147/143(3) dated 24.12.2010 could not be rectified as the AO and CIT(A) applied their mind for disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed u/s 143(3) dt. 18.12.2007 but not in the order passed on 24/12/2010. Therefore the appellant's petition u/s 154 was relevant to the order passed u/s 14(3) dated 18/12/2007.As per the provisions of section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 the time limit for passing the order under section 154 is four years from the end of relevant Financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In the appellant's case the appellant has made application for amendment of order under section 154, for amendment of order under section 143(3) dated 18.12.2007 on 13.12.2013 which was beyond the time limit allowed under section 154. Therefore the application made by the appellant under section 154 is barred by limitation. Accordingly there is no case for the amendment of the order under section 143(3) dated 18.12.2007. Therefore the assessee's request for amendment is rightly rejected by the A. O. Secondly, the application u / s 154 was made for amendment of the order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 24th December 2010 requesting the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 1,12,73,815/-. If the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted or not, under which section the TDS was applicable is based on the facts. On analysis of the facts and the explanation offered by the appellant the Assessing Officer held that the TDS was required to be deducted under section 194C which was accepted by the appellant by withdrawing the appeal. Now the appellant contention that the TDS was not deductible under section 194C but applicable under section 1941 is a debatable issue which cannot be adjudicated upon under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record. The learned counsel for the assesseee has vehemently argued the case of the assessee on merit on the issue of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of tanker hire charges by raising various contentions. The main plank of his argument is that the payments made by the assessee on account of tanker hire charges were in the nature of rent as envisaged in section 194I and not in the nature of works contract covered u/s 194C as taken by the AO and since the expenditure incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
