TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, vouchers, bank statements, books of accounts, details of professional fees before the AO which were duly examined by the ld. AO and which fact is also mentioned at page 2 of the assessment order. While this is so, it cannot be said that the AO had not made any enquiry regarding this issue while framing the assessment. AO had taken a possible view on the matter and the CIT is only trying to substitute his own view against the view taken already by the AO, by invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 which in our considered opinion, is not permissible - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A No. 2409 /Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2018 - Shri AT Varkey, JM, And Shri M.Balaganesh, AM For the Appellant : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interests of the revenue and accordingly invoked revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act stating that the assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 96,000/- to Mahua Basu Mallick for Cancel Awareness Programme without deduction of tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Ld. CIT, the same is to be disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. The assessee made a legal objection stating that all the details were furnished before the ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings together with bills, vouchers, bank statements and books of accounts which were duly examined by the ld. AO before framing the assessment. The assessee also replied before the Ld. CIT that he had paid ₹ 96,000/- to Mahua Basu Mallick residin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not attracted in the facts of the instant case with regard to the subject mentioned payment of ₹ 96,000/-. We also find that the assessee had produced the entire bills, vouchers, bank statements, books of accounts, details of professional fees before the ld. AO which were duly examined by the ld. AO and which fact is also mentioned at page 2 of the assessment order. While this is so, it cannot be said that the ld.AO had not made any enquiry regarding this issue while framing the assessment. On the contrary, it can only be said that the ld. AO had taken a possible view on the matter and the Ld. CIT is only trying to substitute his own view against the view taken already by the ld. AO, by invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
