9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act, setting aside the assessment order u/s. 147 r. w. s. 144B of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 by invoking provisions of clause (a) of Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Act, even though the appellant's case does not fall within the ambit of the said provisions. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned order u/s. 263 be quashed." 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee was a partnership firm and was converted into a Limited Liability Partnership under the name of United Brothers Multiplast LLP ("the LLP") w.e.f. 18.02.2015. Since the income/receipts were offered to tax in the hands of the LLP by filing the return of income for the year under consideration, no return of income was filed by the partnership firm. On the basis of information available on the Actionable Information Monitoring System of AIMS Module that TDS has been deducted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act after considering the submissions of the partnership firm. It was further submitted that certain parties were required to deduct TDS under sections 194H and 194A of the Act in the hands of the newly converted LLP but erroneously deducted the TDS in the hands of the erstwhile partnership firm. It was further submitted that despite repeated requests to such parties they have not revised the TDS return pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. It was further submitted that the LLP has duly accounted for such transaction and offered profits thereon in its hand and paid income thereon without claiming TDS deducted in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm. Thus, it was submitted that the income is duly credited by the newly formed/converted LLP and therefore, these transactions were part of the books of account regularly maintained and duly audited under the LLP Act and under section 44AB of the Act. The PCIT thereafter issued another show cause notice on 08.03.2024 under section 263 of the Act to the partnership firm, which was duly responded to by the partnership firm vide its submission dated 20.03.2024. 7. The PCIT, vide impugned order, did not agree with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no income was earned by it and therefore, no return was filed for the year under consideration. It was further clarified that the income earned belongs to the LLP and has been shown in the return of income filed by the LLP. The partnership firm further submitted that certain deductors have been issued the TDS certificate in the name of the partnership firm. We further find that the AO issued notices under section 142(1) on 21.12.2021 and 07.09.2022 which were duly responded to by the partnership firm and information as sought was furnished. Thus, it is evident that only after considering the submissions of the partnership firm, the AO vide its order dated 15.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act completed the assessment at the returned income without making any additions in the hands of the partnership firm. Thus, we find no basis in the findings of the learned PCIT that due verification was not made by the AO as is expected to be made under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. From the perusal of the submission dated 09.02.2024 filed in its reply to the notice issued under section 263, forming part of the paper book from pages 2-7, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be. (2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (IA) of section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made. (3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than those referred to in sub-section (I) and subsection (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. The revenue relies on the phrase "shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made" to contend that the assessee's TDS claim cannot be based on the receipts of M/s REPL. However, the assessee fairly admitted throughout the proceedings for its TDS c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that in not all circumstances is TDS credit given to the deductee. 10. This Court relies upon the well-settled dictum that procedure is the handmaid of justice, and it cannot be used to hamper the cause of justice Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, [2003] 3 SCC 272. Therefore, the revenue's contention that the assessee, instead of claiming the entire TDS amount, ought to have sought a correction of the vendor's mistake, would unnecessarily prolong the entire process of seeking refund based on TDS credit. 11. In light of the aforesaid reasons, the question of law framed is answered against the revenue and the appeal is accordingly dismissed." 10. In the present case, as noted above, since the TDS of Rs. 15,84,582/ as appearing in the name of the partnership firm was only allowed to the partnership firm and not to the LLP, despite the fact that the corresponding income was offered to tax by the LLP, we are of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) held that in order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
