THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU / THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU v. M/S.VIJAYA BANK
[Citation -2015-LL-0915-1]
| Citation | 2015-LL-0915-1 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU / THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU |
| Respondent Name | M/S.VIJAYA BANK |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 15/09/2015 |
| Assessment Year | 2008-09 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | short deduction of tds • revisional power • substantial question of law |
| Bot Summary: | Challenging the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by the revenue on the following two questions of law: i. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that disallowance under Section 3 40(a)(ia) cannot be made when there is short deduction of tax when the said short deduction was already brought out in the order u/s.263 but the assessee had failed to substantiate with the evidence that the issue related to short deduction and not non- deduction ii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in quashing 263 order holding that two views were possible on this issue and assessing officer has adopted one review which cannot be revised by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act when no two views were available on this issue 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal has been heard and is being finally disposed of at the Admission stage. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal, primarily on the ground that the quantum of short deduction of tax at source was admitted by the assessee and there was no further verification required by the Assessing Officer and also that the legal position was well settled that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be made where there was a short deduction of tax at source and that such claim was made by the assessee in the audit report, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Further, it has been held that since two views were possible to be taken by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee, and one of the possible views has been taken, then in such a situation the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act could not have been exercised. We do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal of the assessee. |