ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARVIND RETAIL LTD.,AHMEDABAD V. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 912/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., formerly known as Arvind Retail Ltd., which appealed against the revision order passed by the PCIT, Ahmedabad-1. The revision was based on two main issues: non-disallowance of certain payments for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and the acceptance of loans/deposits not verified through bank channels as per the Audit Report. The Tribunal examined the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee, including the deduction of TDS on higher amounts than those debited to the Profit & Loss account and the clerical error in the Audit Report regarding the mode of loan acceptance. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's revision was not justified as the issues had been adequately addressed during the original assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791993 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VARTIKCHOKSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0015ी संजय गग\u001b, \u0011ाियक सद एवं \u0015ी नरे !साद िस\"ा, लेखा सद क े सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.912/Ahd/2024 िनधा \u0010रण वष\u0010 /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd. Formerly knowns as Arvind Retail Ltd. Arvind Mills Premises Naroda Road Ahmedabad – 382 345 बनाम/ v/s. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 Ahmedabad – 380 015 \u0014थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAACH 7252 A (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (hereinafter referred to as “PCIT”) dated 12/03/2024 u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT to show that the Ld. PCIT has Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.912/Ahd/2024 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., Formerly known as Arvind Retail Ltd., vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 2 exercised his revision jurisdiction on two counts. Firstly, that the assessee had paid commission & brokerage amount of Rs.14,76,51,578/- and fees for professional or technical services of Rs.49,53,72,108/-. However, neither the AO nor the assessee has disallowed the said amount for non-deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Secondly, in the Audit Report , the Auditors had not certified that the loan/deposit had not been taken or accepted by cheque or bank draft or electronic clearing system through bank account and that the AO has not called for details of such loans or deposits during the assessment proceedings. 3. The Ld. Counsel further brought to our attention to the following Chart: Remarks Sr.No. Expense Amt on which TDS deducted Amt Debited to P&L Account 1. Royalty 84,70,80,028 83,46,52,368 2. Prof Fees 49,53,72,108 15,80,07,108 3. Com & Brokerage 82,77,25,926 97,53,77,504 Total 217,01,78,062 196,80,36,980 PB Page Reference 45 40 3.1. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the above Chart and submitted that the TDS was deducted on a higher amount, whereas, the amount actually debited to P&L account was less and, therefore, even otherwise, there was no loss to the Revenue, therefore, the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3.2. He has further demonstrated that the Ld. PCIT had issued show-cause to the assessee in this respect, whereupon, the assessee furnished the reply Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.912/Ahd/2024 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., Formerly known as Arvind Retail Ltd., vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 3 and necessary details. The assessee explained before the PCIT that the TDS was duly deducted in respect of all the payments made by the assessee. Further that in the case of some advance payments made during the earlier year on which the TDS was duly deducted, the same was, however, claimed as expenditure during the year under consideration and similarly TDS was deducted on certain advance payments made during the year under consideration, which will be claimed as an expenditure when the transaction is matured in the subsequent year. It was also explained that the loans were taken by the assessee through banking channel and that there was a clerical mistake in the Audit Report as the Auditor in the relevant column had mentioned inadvertently as “NO” instead of “YES”. It was also explained that the said issue was duly examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and it was duly explained to the AO that the loans were taken through banking channel. However, the Ld. PCIT has directed the AO to verify the same issue again. 4. A perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT reveals that the Ld. PCIT did not consider the aforesaid explanation given by the assessee and set aside the assessment order and further restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the aforesaid issues again without giving any reasoning for the same. The assessee has duly demonstrated and explained that the TDS was duly deducted on the payments made and further that the loans were taken through banking channel. There remains nothing for further enquiry. The Ld. PCIT, in this case, has passed the revision order u/s.263 of the Act in a mechanical manner without application of mind. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the AO was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.912/Ahd/2024 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., Formerly known as Arvind Retail Ltd., vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 4 neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The impugned order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s.263 of the Act is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 09 /12/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / Office of the Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with file) : 1.12.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 1.12.2025/5,12,25 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 9.12.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 9.12.25 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "