Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 897 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) - Disallowance of excess claim of depreciation on motor car, Excessive claim of depreciation on Energy Saving Device and Wind Turbine Generators and Disallowance u/s. 14A - difference in income shown by assessee and income transferred by Emtici Engineering Ltd. is on account of comparing the amount of income shown by assessee with amount on which TDS is deducted and also the service tax charged on that income - HELD THAT:- There is a difference of income - This income was not considered by the assessing officer while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which is erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is further seen from record while the original assessment was completed the assessing officer has issued 143(2) notices calling from various details. The assessee have made detailed reply claiming the TDS credit availed by the assessee, the same is already been reproduced. There is an Indemnity Bond given by the assessee company to the assessing officer, as against the claim of TDS total credit from Emtici Engineering Ltd. and Prayas Engineering Ltd. vide Indemnity Bond dated 21.03.2016. Thus it cannot be said the assessing officer has not conducted proper enquiry before passing the above assessment order. In our considered view the assessing officer has clearly issued notices u/s. 143(2) from time to time calling from various details and on receipt of the reply from the assessee, with relevant records passed the above assessment order, which cannot be said neither erroneous order nor pre judicial to the interest of the revenue. Further we could see the assessee has followed Rule 37BA procedures by obtaining Indemnity Bond which containing the name, PAN No. of the person to whom credit is to be given amount of TDS and reasons for giving credit to such person. As rightly held in the case of Naresh Bhavani Shah (HUF) [2017 (7) TMI 819 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that these conditions in brief are that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor in this respect, such declaration would contain the details of the person entitled to the credit and the reasons for giving such credit and lastly the deductor issues certificates for deducting tax at source in the name of such a person. Respectfully following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed u/s. 263 by the CIT- 2, Vadodara is not in accordance with law and therefore the same is hereby quashed. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are hereby allowed.
|