TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the respondent. 2. By this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue has proposed the following question of law arising out of the order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (for short the 'Tribunal') in ITA No.328/SRT/2019 for Assessment Year 2014-2015 : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in quashing the order of the Pr.CIT passed u/s. 263 without considering that it is a case where the decision of the AO is against the provision of law and it is not a case of possible view?" 3. The brief facts of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e return for Assessment Year 2014-15. 3.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, contention was taken by the assessee that RKIL has taken into account the said sum for computing income in its return of income and has paid the due taxes and therefore no dis-allowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act can be made. The Assessing Officer accepted this contention and no dis- allowance was made on that count. The assessee however, deducted the tax in the subsequent assessment year and credited to the Government account but after due date of filing of return and the deductor therefore is to be treated as assessee in default and provisio under Section 201(1) of the Act according to the PCIT was not applicable and consequently, the PCIT wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that the assessee deposited the tax with the Central Government but at the time of depositing the tax, the assessee selected Section 194(J) instead of Section 194(I) of the Act. This fact was evident from the TDS return in Form 26Q filed with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer therefore did not make any separate dis-allowance as total payment of Rs. 2,19,96,779/- made to RKIT including that expenses was subjected to payment of TDS coupled with the fact that the RKIL also offered the entire amount as income and paid tax thereon as per the Certificate issued in Form 26A as required in first provisio to Section 201 of the Act. 3.6. The Tribunal therefore was of the opinion that the PCIT could not have invoked the revisional juris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the same and after due application of mind passed the assessment order, so it cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. So, the Ld.PCIT's finding fault, with the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, on account of lack of inquiry, has to fail. Bases on these facts and circumstances, we quash the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Ld.PCIT under Section 263 of the Act." 4. Considering the above findings arrived at by the Tribunal as well as the facts emerging from the record, it is not in dispute that the assessee has furnished the Certificate in Form 26A as required in the first provisio to Section 201 of the Act, which reads as under : "201.(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... read with first provisio to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which reads as under : "40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38), the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income charge able under the head "Profits and gains of business of profession- (a) in the case of any assessee- (i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,...... (A) outside India: or (B) in India to a non-resident, not being a company or to a foreign company, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-Band and such tax has not been deducted or, a....