2022 (6) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to interest of revenue, in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee's identical substantive grievance in all these three cases seeks to reverse the PCIT's revision directions in exercise of section 263 proceedings thereby holding that the assessing authority's as many reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and section 263 revision exercise amounts to collateral proceedings wherein the forming validity could very well be challenged to the extent of correctness of CIT's revision action only. Learned co-ordinate bench taken note of (1955) 1 SCR 117 (SC) in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply in tax proceedings. We hold in view of foregoing list of precedents that defect in primary proceedings strikes at the very authority in collateral exerci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r book. The sole difference is only qua assessee's payments made. 9. We observe in light of above extracted re-opening reasons that the assessing authority had indeed failed to indicate as to under which provision of law in Chapter XVII of the Act the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on her impugned payments. The Revenue sought to highlight at this stage that the Pr. CIT has made it clear in the impugned revision directions that the assessee made contractual payments liable for TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant arguments once it is clear that the assessing authority had not specified in the reopening reasons about applicability of the particular statutory provision requiring TDS deduct....