9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Order u/s. 263 of the Act has been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 263(2) of the Act and is thus illegal and bad in law. 2. The Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on the erroneous ground that the impugned assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in not appreciating that in order to invoke S.263, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. the impugned assessment order must be erroneous and that error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, Ld. AO passed the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief fats of the case are that the assessee had filed original return of income on 13.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 3,32,72,650/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 05.02.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 3,20,88,190/-. The scrutiny proceedings were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25.02.2021, accepting the returned income of Rs. 3,20,88,190/-. 4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that assessee had not deducted tax at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,94,800/- as his income while computing his total income and has also paid due taxes on such income. It was submitted that this fact was specifically brought to the notice of the Ld. PCIT during the course of 263 proceedings, however, he committed to consider the same. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the recipient of income has already paid due taxes on such salary income, there is no loss to the revenue and hence no disallowance is warranted in terms of Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted that so far as TDS on payment of Rs. 1,94,800/- is concerned, there is not prejudice to the Revenue on account of non-deduction of tax at source, on the part of the assessee. 6. With respect to no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the contention with the recipient of such commission income has duly incorporated the same in the return of income filed by the recipient and has paid due taxes thereon. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that so far as non-deduction of TDS on commission payment of Rs. 2,61,000/- is concerned, the amount of Rs. 78,300/- should be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as was submitted by the assessee during the course of 263 proceedings. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observation made by the PCIT in the 263 order. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 9. We are in agreement with the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that once the recipient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
