TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 29-11-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 86.68 crore. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 04-05-2016 determining total income at Rs. 109.55 crore. The ld. PCIT, on examination of the relevant material, observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to carry out necessary inquiry and the resultant order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, therefore, set-aside the assessment order on certain issues and directed the AO to re-frame the assessment after proper verification. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. PCIT invoked jurisdiction on four counts, which we wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nge was pressed on this issue as well. 6.1. The third ground for invoking the revisionary power u/s.263 is that of the AO not making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source/short deduction of tax at source on payments covered u/s.194A, 194J and 194H. The Audit Report of the assessee divulged that there was non deduction of tax at source and also short deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs. 5,39,94,141/-. As against that, the assessee had added back only a sum of Rs. 2,37,81,782/- u/s.40(a). This, in the opinion of the ld. PCIT, resulted into allowing excess deduction of Rs. 3.02 crore. On being called upon to explain its stand, the assessee submitted that it deducted tax at source on Rs. 2.77....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the stage of the Tribunal. 6.4. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that the AO in the assessment proceedings pursuant to revisionary order has accepted the assessee's claim of not making any disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of the expenses on which deduction of tax at source was done and payment was also made before the due date of filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act. To that extent, there cannot be any reason for the assessee to be aggrieved. As regards the remaining amount of Rs. 24.32 lakh, the ld. AR submitted that it was a case of short deduction of tax at source and not non-deduction and hence, no disallowance could have been made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. There is no dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties. That would not attract the ratio in S.K. Tekriwal (supra) to escape the disallowance in respect of remaining 7 parties. Instantly, we are dealing with the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source from Commission/brokerage paid by the assessee. On being called upon to produce the details of the parties to whom commission or brokerage was paid and the rate at which deduction of tax at source was made, the assessee failed to furnish any such detail. The same position prevailed at the level of the ld. PCIT as well. In the absence of the assessee having produced details of commission or brokerage, the case of short deduction of tax at source is not established. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the assessee reported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, it becomes sine qua non on the part of the PCIT to specifically point out as to how the decision of the AO in expressly or impliedly allowing deduction on a particular point is erroneous. 7.3. Adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it is seen that the assessee company sold its products to distributors at a price lower than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), which difference has been opined by the ld. PCIT as Commission requiring deduction of tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. It is simple and plain that a manufacturer would sell his goods to Stockists or Distributors at a price below the MRP, who, in turn, will add up their margin and then sell the products to the retailers. The MRP is the price which is charged by a Retailer from th....