Tribunal overturns Commissioner's decision on tax deduction, emphasizing valid AO's decision.

M/s. Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT., Kol. III, Kolkata

M/s. Kunjal Synergies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT., Kol. III, Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:
- Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 on deduction of tax at source on reimbursement of freight charges

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 on deduction of tax at source on reimbursement of freight charges

Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal was whether the ld.CIT erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 on the matter of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement of freight charges to suppliers, which had already been considered by the AO in the original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld.CIT found the original assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to non-deduction of tax at source on freight charges paid by the assessee. The CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 based on the non-deduction of tax at source on freight charges totaling a specific amount during the financial year 2008-09. The CIT contended that the failure to deduct tax at source made the amount not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interest.

Analysis Continues:
In response to the show cause notice, the assessee explained that the freight payments were reimbursed to suppliers who had already paid the freight to carriers, and there was no requirement to deduct tax at source as it was only reimbursement of expenses. The CIT disagreed with the assessee's explanation, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment order where the AO failed to examine certain issues related to freight charges and tax deduction liability. The CIT concluded that even in debatable cases, the power u/s 263 could be exercised, citing relevant case laws and emphasizing that the disclosure of facts by the assessee does not grant immunity from revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis Concludes:
Upon hearing both parties, the tribunal noted that the AO had considered the issue and applied his mind, leading to a valid decision. Referring to relevant legal provisions and case laws, the tribunal found that the AO's decision was not unsustainable in law, and the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 was not justified. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT's order u/s 263 of the IT Act, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The tribunal's decision was based on the principles that every loss of revenue does not necessarily indicate prejudice to revenue's interest and that the AO's decision, even if debatable, should not be interfered with unless unsustainable in law.