TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicial to the interest of revenue is against law and facts of the case and therefore section 263 of the Income Tax Act, has wrongly been applied. 2. That there was no opportunity granted by the CIT(Central) to the assessee to offer his comments on the report of the AO as the notice for appearance before the CIT (Central) for 7/3/2013 was never served on the assessee and therefore the order passed by the CIT is illegal, void ab initio on the issue of lack of opportunity. 3. That non deduction of tax on commission payment of Rs. 47,925/- during the year and its consequent disallowance u/s 40a(ia) which has been made as one of the reasons for taking resort to section 263 is uncalled for as the TDS provisions did not apply to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s as the same Central Circle at the same point of time accepts the agreement of spread over in the case of another assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not initiated and consequently section 263 is not invoked and at the same time the same Circle applies a different yardstick in the case of assessee where provision of section 263 applied despite the agreement with the Deptt. 8. Such other grounds as may be urged on hearing." 2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. S.S.Kalra, CA, did not press ground No.1 and therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No.8 is general in nature and therefore, does not require adjudication. 4. As regards ground No.1, the brief facts of the case are that search & seizure u/s 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s 263(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2012 in response to which AR of the assessee Sh. S.S. Kalra submitted his reply dated 09.01.2013. On assessee's submissions, a report was called for from the A.O. which was submitted by the AO vide his letter dated 30.01.2013 forwarded by the Addl. CIT, Range Central, Ludhiana vide office letter dated 04.02.2013. Copy of the above report has been sent to the assessee for his reply. Vide letter dated 28.02.2013, assessee was asked to submit his explanations on the report of the A.O. fixing the case for hearing on 07.03.2013. However, neither anyone attended nor any reply was received. In view of the above,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the assessee has very categorically made a surrender under section 132(4) and where in the said letter, it has been stated that surrender u/s 132(4) is made in order to buy peace and gain the immunity from penal action u/s 271(1)(c) or 276 of the I.T.Act. As regards the explanation to section 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return has been filed within due date as prescribed under the Act and due date does not only refer to the provisions of section 139(1) but the same includes the return filed under section 139(4) of the Act and return in the present case has been filed on 31.03.2009 u/s 139(4) of the Act, which is within due date prescribed under the Act. He relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 194H of the Act, we are convinced with the arguments made by the Ld. counsel before the Ld. CIT (Central), Ludhiana and before us that the TDS provisions under section 194H are applicable if the gross receipts exceeds Rs. 40 lacs in the immediately preceding year whereas in the present case, the assessee's turnover is just Rs. 5.43 lacs and therefore, TDS provisions u/s 194H of the Act cannot be made applicable in the impugned year. Accordingly, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, the ld. CIT (Central ) Ludhiana is not justified in concluding that the order of the AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the same is cancelled to that extent. 10.1. As regards the surr....