9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, in this case, the decision of the A O has been subsequently upheld by two different decisions of the Hon ble ITAT, therefore , the decision taken by the assessing officer does not fall within the scope of section 263 of the Act and hence order of the PCIT is unsustainable in law. Therefore, we hold that the order passed u/s. 263 is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.2631/Chny/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 14-6-2021 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us aspects. In response, the assessee explained all the transactions. The ld PCIT has accepted the assessee s explanations and dropped them but for one, which is in respect of transport charges claimed at ₹ 1,15,51,643/- without deducting TDS. The assessee has submitted before the ld PCIT that for this amount it has complied with the provisions of section 194C (6) by obtaining PAN from the transporters which has been furnished to the AO. On due satisfaction, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee s claim and completed the assessment. In this regard, the assessee relied on before the PCIT that as per the recent case law in the case of ITO vs M/s. Sugarchemin ITA No. 2071/Mumbai/2016 , wherein the Tribunal held that Section 194C(6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions in the case of ITO vs Sugarchem in ITA No. 2071/Mumbai/2016, which was also relied on before the PCIT , ACIT vs Arihant Trading Co. Bharatpur (2019) 104 taxmann.com 336(Jaipur-Trib)- 176ITD 307 (Jaipur-Trib) dt 19.3.2019, and further relied on the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of M/s. Agasthiya Granite P Ltd vs ACIT in TCA No. 450 of 2007 dated 16.04.2018. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the PCIT. 6. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. The only issue in this appeal is in respect of the fact that the assessee paid transport charges of ₹ 1,15,51,643/- without deducting tax at source as it has obtained PAN of the transporters and furnished the same to the AO fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (7). It shall be sufficient compliance if the assessee furnished the copies of declaration u/s. 194C(7) before the assessing officer so as to avoid applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On this reason, he set aside the assessment order u/s. 263. It is clear from the above that although the assessee has brought to the notice of the ld. PCIT that as per the Hon ble ITAT decision ,supra, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) even if there is a violation under section 194C(7) of the Act and when two views are possible on this issue ,proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be initiated etc., the ld PCIT set aside the assessment order u/s. 263 without meeting the assessee s objections legally. Before us, the assessee relied on the ITAT Jaipur b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
