Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1156 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - specific information received by the AO from his counterpart at Surat - addition u/s 14A added back to the book profit of the assessee u/s 115JB which amount was not disclosed by the assessee in the original return of income and thus, escaped assessment - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. BENGAL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. [2015 (2) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] relying on M/S ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. [2015 (5) TMI 810 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] an amount disallowed u/s 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at the book profit for purpose of Section 115JB of the Act, TDS u/s 194J on MICR charges to MICR Centre managed by State Bank of India - Assessee in its reply had clearly stated that assessee had deducted tax at source and paid into government account, details of which were provided in the reply - HELD THAT:- Basic issue as to whether tax is deductible at source on MICR charges itself is debatable. Assessee had referred to several decisions of the Tribunal including a coordinate bench at Mumbai wherein it was held that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source in such a transaction. When that is the position, we fail to understand as to how the Assessing Officer could invoke jurisdiction under Sections 147/148 of the Act. Therefore, the first appellate authority was justified in deleting such addition. Regarding the third deletion, it is quite evident that assessee had disclosed details of TDS made from the payments to the caterer. Such information was furnished from the record of the bank where payments were made and in support of the payments, internal vouchers were furnished. If the AO had any further doubt in this regard, he could have very well verified the record of the bank by issuing notice to the bank in question. Thus, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the first appellate authority. AO was not justifying in taking the view that assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the purpose of assessment of his income for the assessment year under consideration and the Tribunal is correct in taking the view that Assessing Officer could not have issued notice to reopen the concluded assessment in the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|