TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this appeal. 2. By means of various grounds raised in Appeal Memo, which are not being narrated here for the sake of brevity, the assessee has precisely claimed that the Ld. CIT has erred in passing revision-order u/s 263. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of providing cellular mobile and telecommunication service. On 14.03.2012, Ld. AO passed an order u/s 201(1)/(1A) holding the assessee as responsible for deduction of tax at source u/s 194H out of certain payments. Subsequently, Ld. CIT examined the records of proceeding conducted by Ld. AO and found the aforesaid order passed by Ld. AO as erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 194H out of payments covered under section 194H only, the Ld. AO had no occasion to deal with the TDS u/s 194J out of impugned payment of roamingcharges. In such a situation, according to Ld. AR, when the originalorder was qua the payments covered u/s 194H and not qua payments covered u/s 194J at all, how can Ld. CIT invoke section 263 by saying that the Ld. AO has not examined the issue of TDS out of roaming charges? (ii) Ld. AR submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TDSCircle, Indore conducted enquiries in the matter of TDS out of impugned roaming-charges paid by assessee, which is very much evident from the following documents placed at Page No. 24 to 33 of the Paper-Book: (a) Copy of the letter dated 12.07.2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eply dated 20.03.2014 filed in response to show-cause notice issued by CIT u/s 263. But the Ld. CIT has not taken cognizance of these facts while passing revision-order. In fact, the Ld. CIT has made following observation on Page No. 4 of the order, which is factually wrong: "The assessee has not submitted any evidence to establish that the recipient service providers to whom the assessee has paid the roaming charges, have paid their entire taxes for the F.Y. 2009- 10. Hence, the decision of Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. VS. CIT 293 ITR 226 is not applicable in assessee's case. In view of above it is held that the tax payable u/s 201 and interest payable u/s 201(1A) have been under-asessed." It is noteworthy tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 194J, whereas the impugned roaming-charges for which revision is invoked, are subject-matter of section 194J. Therefore, the revision-order passed by Ld. CIT is unsustainable in the first instance itself. Going further, we also find weightage in the submission of Ld. AR that vide letter dated 12.07.2013 and summon dated 24.09.2013, the department has made independent enquiries from assessee with respect to TDS out of roaming-charges and the assessee had filed adequate replies. Thereafter, no order was passed against assessee u/s 201(1)/201(1A) qua TDS out of roaming charges. By such action, the department has accepted that no TDS was required out of roaming-charges. It is further demonstrated by Ld. AR that the assessee had filed the deta....