Telecom Infrastructural Consultancy Services Private Limited, Patiala V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

ITA 373/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Telecom Infrastructural Consultancy Services Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The original issue pertained to discrepancies in TDS figures reported in Form 26AS and those recorded in the company's Profit & Loss Account for the assessment year 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously explained these discrepancies, which were accepted by the Assessing Officer in a revised assessment order. However, the incumbent PCIT set aside this order without addressing the previous explanations, leading to the Tribunal's decision to quash the revision order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127868 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No 373/CHD/2022 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Telecom Infrastructural Consultancy Services Private Limited, 18-A, Budha Dal Shopping Centre, Patiala. Vs The Pr. CIT, Patiala. थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AADCT0946J अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Raghav Sharma, CA राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Thakur, CIT DR स ु नवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2023 उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld.PCIT’] dated 25.03.2022 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order to submit that the ld. PCIT has set aside the assessment order holding the ITA No.373/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2014-15 2 same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue noting that there was a difference regarding the figures of the receipts as shown in Form 26AS of the Act as compared to the Profit & Loss Account and that the assessee has been allowed full credit of TDS as shown in Form 26AS, whereas, the returned income of the assessee was less. The Ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect has submitted that earlier the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’)vide order dated 21.12.2016. The ld. counsel has further submitted that earlier on the same issue, the then Pr. CIT had exercised his revision jurisdiction and had set aside the assessment order dt. 21.12.2016 vide his order dated 29.11.2018 to the file of the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) to examine this issue relating to the difference in figures of receipts as recorded in Form 26AS and as compared to the Profit & Loss Account and further claim of the full TDS amount as shown in Form 26AS in the return of income. 3. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to page 5 of the Paper Book which is a copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2018, issued by the then ld. PCIT. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the notice ITA No.373/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2014-15 3 issued by the AO in the set aside assessment proceedings asking the assessee to explain the aforesaid difference. The assessee had submitted a detailed reply dated 20.12.2019, copy of which has been placed at page 12 of the Paper Book, wherein, the assessee explained that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting and that the assessee had already booked the relevant income in the earlier assessment years, however, the payers had deducted the TDS on making the actual payment in subsequent year, which was accordingly claimed in the subsequent assessment year under consideration. A chart in this respect was also referred to by the assessee before the AO explaining the reasons for the aforesaid difference of figures as shown in Form 26AS as compared to Profit & Loss Account. The ld. AO got satisfied with the above submissions and did not make any addition in the fresh assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019. 4. The Ld. counsel has submitted that now the incumbent ld. PCIT, without going through the aforesaid facts and without rebutting the explanation given by the assessee in this respect, has again, on the same issue, set aside the assessment order for denovo assessment. ITA No.373/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2014-15 4 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the impugned order of the ld. PCIT and has further submitted that the AO has not discussed specifically about the explanation given by the assessee in the fresh assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record. We find that the assessee, not only in response to Show Cause Notice issued by the then ld. PCIT dated 12.04.2018, vide his reply dated 23.04.2018 but also during the assessment proceedings, has duly explained the reasons for mis-match of figures in Form 26AS as compared to the receipts shown in Profit & Loss Account. The AO, being satisfied with the above explanation, did not make any addition on this issue. Now vide impugned revision order, the ld. PCIT has again referred the matter on the same issue to the AO without rebutting the already given explanation by the assessee, not only in response to the earlier Show Cause Notice given by the then ld. PCIT but also duly explained to the AO in response to the notice issued by the then AO in this respect in the set aside assessment proceedings. The present revision order of the ld. PCIT, in our view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as ITA No.373/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2014-15 5 setting aside the assessment for denovo assessment without rebutting the contentions of the assessee on the issue and also ignoring the fact that the issue already stood examined in the earlier set aside assessment proceedings, will amount to unnecessary harassment of the assessee. The ld. PCIT, in our view, has wrongly exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23 r d August,2023. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क त(ल)प अ*े)षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु +त/ CIT 4. )वभागीय त न.ध, आयकर अपील"य आ.धकरण, च0डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar