9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of understanding the complexities in the order of the PCIT by the assessee's Chartered Accountant and it was neither wilful nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, it was pleaded that the delay be condoned in the interests of justice and for adjudicating the issues on merits . 3. We heard the rival contentions and condone the delay. 4. The PCIT, Madurai-1 in his order passed u/s. 263 dated 28.03.2019 set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2016 in the case of M/s. JenirichAgro Products P Ltd., the assessee , for the assessment year 2014-15, holding , inter alia, that it is erroneous in so far it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 194C(6) but not complied with the provisions of section 194C(7). Hence, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) will not attract. However, the ld PCIT without appreciating the fact that the twin conditions of error in the original assessment order and prejudice causing to the Revenue in passing the said original assessment order were not concurrently satisfied, wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and also passed the impugned order. The Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that having noticed the objections of the appellant for invoking the powers of revision both on technical grounds and on merits/facts, mechanically set aside the original assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make addition as per Para 5.1 r.w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the PCIT is of the view that since the assessee has not furnished the details as stipulated in sub section 7 of section 194C before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without disallowing such a claim u/s. 40(a)(ia) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, before the PCIT the assessee relying on the ITAT decision in the case of ITO vs Sugarchem, supra, pleaded that when two views are possible, the view taken by the AO cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT held that the provisions of section 194C(7) are in continuation of 194C(6) and non compliance to section 194C(7) does not serve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a)." Further the assessee relied on the Jurisdictional High Court decision, supra , and pleaded that when two views are possible on an issue, if the 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 and hence we set aside the impugned order and allow the assessee's ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
