9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on appeal against the re-assessment order stating that his claim for deduction under Section 54 should be accepted.
Also in the process of considering as to what relief the assessee is entitled to, the AO held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, and in such circumstances, the Commissioner could not exercise power under Section 263 of the Act on account of the statutory bar. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome at Rs. 10,10,840/-. Late on, as per information available during the FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 the assessee had made payment of Rs. 65,09,478/- towards transport charges and a payment of Rs. 18,30,325/- towards outward transport charges. The assessee had not deducted TDS while making the above payments. Accordingly, case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. In compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee submitted that return filed on 18.09.2013 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148. The assessment was framed vide order dated 24.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act, disallowing 30% of payment of Rs. 65,09,478/- made towards transport charges and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the appeal before the CIT(A)- NFAPC, New Delhi filed on 22.04.2022 vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number 593842080220422 against the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act, a notice u/s 263 dated 02.02.2024 has been issued by the PCIT, 1, Madurai. In the said notice dated 02.02.2024 u/s 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has raised the same issue of disallowance of payment of Rs. 65,09,478/- made towards transport charges and Rs. 18,30,325/- towards outward transport charges u/s 40a(ia) of the Act which was disallowed and added back to the income of assessee by assessment order dated 24.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act. 7. During the course of revision proceedings u/s 263, the assessee raised vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "The contention of the AR is not acceptable for the reasons that in the appeal the assessee has contested that he is not liable to deduct at source and hence disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not warrant in his case. However, in the present proceedings the issue involved is for the remaining 70% disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for the Asst. Year 2013-14 which is in addition to the earlier disallowance of 30% u/s 40 (a)(ia). Hence, the issue on which the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) is different from the issue involved in the present revisional proceedings. Moreover, the CIT(A) has also not yet decided the appeal. Therefore, the objection raised by the AR on this ground is not acceptable''. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case andpaper book containing pages (1-120)& case laws paper book containing pages (1-255). Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Renuka Philip Vs ITO [409 ITR 567 (Mad)] wherein the Hon'ble Court after considering clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act held as under: "The power under Section 263 of the Act is not exercisable under certain circumstances. In this regard, we refer to Section 263(1) explanation 1(c), which reads as follows: "Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue 263(1)... (a)... (b)... (c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, the Assessing Officer while completing the re-assessment proceedings has assigned certain reasons for coming to a conclusion that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F and not under Section 54 of the Act. This reason assigned by the Assessing Officer has been found by us to show due application of mind. As observed, we cannot expect an Assessing Officer to write a judgment. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Commissioner in his order under Section 263 of the Act has to be termed as a change of opinion, or in other words, the Assessing Officer adopted one of the two views possible and in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as well as erroneo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
