9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has raised following ground of appeal ; 1. The ld Pr.CIT erred in passing the revision order u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order dt 5/3/2016 as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the alleged ground that AO has not made inquiry in regards to receipt shown in service tax return of the assessee vis a vis as per P&L A/C and that the foreign Principals have paid taxes in India u/s 172 of the Act or not, without appreciating that in course of assessment, complete details of foreign remittance, reconciliation of account vis a vis service tax return & 26AS, details of various receipt etc were filed and explained to assessing officer ; therefore the revision u/s 263 is bad in law. 2. The learned Pr.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the payments made to nonresidents by the assessee? If not, whether necessary certificate was obtained for non-deduction of TDS? b. Whether income of all the principals was exempt from tax in India? For instance, shipping income of the non-residents from non-DTAA countries is not exempt. c. Whether all principals have got Annual exempt certificate from International taxation under section 172, if it is occasional shipping? d. Whether payment is actually of the non-resident or the income of the assessee? 3. The assessee filed its reply dated 14.02.2018. In the reply, the assessee contended that during the relevant year under consideration the assessee was agent of Qatar Navigation, head officer of which is in Dubai, UAE and Asian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer vide its notice under section 142(1) dated 18.12.2015 and in question no. 19 raised specific question for seeking re-conciliation that turnover reported in service tax return is more than the income tax return. The assessee vide its reply dated 29.01.2016 furnished the details of re-conciliation of income as per the service tax return and income tax return. Thus, the Assessing Officer fully verified the fact and after dissatisfaction accepted the reply of assessee as correct. The original assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of Assessing Officer is in accordance with law. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue "has to be read for consumption with erroneous order passed by Assessing Officer". Every loss of revenue as a consequent of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue when the issue is examined by Assessing Officer and the assessing officer passed the order after full verification of the facts, the assessment order cannot be revised under section 263. The revisionary jurisdictional cannot be allowed to be exercised by Commissioner for making roving enquiry, there is no loss to revenue, no income has escaped assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that order is neither prejudicial to the interest of revenue of the proposed action is uncalled for. In support of his submission, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not discussed the issue, which is sought to be revised by ld. PCIT. However, the Assessing Officer during the assessment vide its notice dated 18.12.2015 raised the specific enquiry vide question no. 19, which we have reproduced below: "19. Please file copies of service tax return along with the enclosures. It is observed that higher turnover reported in service tax return than the IT Return please reconciles." 11. The assessee vides its reply dated 29.01.2016 furnished re-conciliation income as per income tax return as well as service tax return. The assessee also furnished the complete detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order; he has not made elaborate discussion in this regard. Similarly, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Arivind Jewellers (supra) held that when material was on record and was considered by Assessing Officer/ITO and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that different view can be taken should not be the base of action under section 263. 13. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpat (supra) held that merely because the assessment order does not refer to query raised by Assessing Officer during the scrutiny and response of the assessee thereto it cannot be said that there was no enquiry and the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial. As we have already noted and referred that the Assessing Officer made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
