9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the original assessment order on another issue, not forming part of the initial notice, on the basis of which 263 proceedings were initiated? HELD THAT:- We agree with the contention of the Ld. D.R. that there is no specific prohibition under Section 263 of the Act which prohibits the Ld. PCIT to give a finding with respect to any other aspect of the assessment order, if from the records it is find that the assessment has over-looked this issue. Admittedly in this case, the Assessing Officer had no plausible reason to explain the lack of inquiries with respect to non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act and there was no reason why disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not made while framing the impugned assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by holding that the A.O. has not conducted any inquiries/verification in respect of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and in respect of non-deduction of tax deducted at source u/s 194C of the Act on contract expenses. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot failed to appreciate that the issue regarding claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act was duly examined by the assessing officer by way of specific inquiry/notice and reply thereto, while finalizing assessment proceedings, u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime upto the hearing of this appeal." 3. The issue for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment order is not erroneous with respect to the aforesaid issue raised by Ld. PCIT. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT issued another notice dated 04.02.2022 in which it was stated that the assessee had claimed contract expenses of Rs. 8,24,30,247/- in the Profit & Loss Account and the same was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. PCIT observed that in view of Section 194C of the Act, TDS should have been deducted on aforesaid contract expenses. However, as per Tax Audit Report, TDS had not been deducted by the assessee. Therefore, in view of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% of the contract expenses should have been disallowed on account of non-deduction of tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framing the assessment order. Further, it was submitted that even the assessee has not objected to the fact that to that extent the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was further submitted that it is also not the case of the assessee that the second notice dated 04.02.2022 is time barred and hence, in absence of any specific prohibition under Section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT is well within his rights to raise any alternate ground during the course of 263 proceedings. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The prime issue for consideration is before us is whether once the assessee has satisfied the Ld. PCIT that the assessment order is not erroneous and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
