TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CR 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 dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 2365/Mum/2013 and 2194/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2005-06. 3. Income Tax Appeal No. 2365/Mum/2013 was filed by the revenue whereas the other appeal was filed by the assessee arising out of the same assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on reopening of assessment. 4. The appeal has been preferred projecting the following questions as substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding the re-assessment proceedings as bad in law despite the fact that reopening was done in the face of specific information received by the Assessing Officer from his counterpart at Surat; which was not available to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erers but the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payment. Therefore, Assessing Officer stated that he had reasons to believe that there was failure on the part of the assessee in not adding back the said amount to the total income under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, Assessing Officer expressed the view that income had escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee which therefore, necessitated reopening of assessment. 7. The assessee submitted his response to the notice issued and furnished explanation. However, Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee and added the aforesaid amounts to the total income of the assessee vide his assessment order dated 15.9.2011 passed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. As per provisions of Sec. 115JB, amount of expenditure relatable to any exempt income if debited to profit and loss account shall be added back. It is seen that as per CIT(A) order dated 31.3.2009, the expenses disallowable u/S. 14A have been computed at ₹ 106,26,80,655/- hence the amount of ₹ 105,06,70,665/- has to be added back to book profits u/s 115JB (₹ 1,20,09,990/- having been added back already in book profits returned by the assessee). In view of this, amount of ₹ 105,06,70,665/- is added back to book profits u/S. 115JB of the IT Act, 1961. 14. As already discussed above, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had upheld the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer. 15. In the course of hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 17. At this stage, we may also revert back to the third addition made by the Assessing Officer under the same provision i.e under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As already referred to herein above, an amount of ₹ 58,94,437.00 was added back to the income of the assessee on the ground that assessee failed to produce proof of deducting TDS on the aforesaid payment made to Ratnakar Shetty, proprietor of M/s. Ratna Caterers. 18. 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. Assessee also stated that the detailed information was gathered from the record of the bank and subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee part or not to add back the amount of ₹ 58,94,437/- to the total income u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not sufficient to frame notice for re-opening concluded assessment beyond the four years. Thus the notice (impugned notice u/s. 48 is bad in law) and does not qualify a sustainable notice under the scrutiny of law, hence, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the re-opening of assessment is declared as invalid. 20. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal as above. Since the very foundation of reassessment was struck down, the revenue's appeal assailing the two deletions was rendered redundant. 21. Nonetheless, since the revenue is in appeal before us, we may examine the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
