| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
April 26, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Despite view taken in s. 195(2)/197 order, s. 147 reopening valid
The assessee was awarded contracts for on-shore supply, on-shore services and off-shore supply by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (PGCIL). PGCIL filed an application u/s 195(2) and obtained an order from the AO that tax had to be deducted at 10% on certain payments and at Nil rate on other payments. The assessee obtained s. 197 certificates to the same effect. Subsequently, the AO revised the s. 197 order and directed that tax be deducted at a higher rate even in respect of payments received in earlier assessment years for which Nil rate had been prescribed. This was challenged by the assessee and it was held by the High Court that the revision in TDS rates would apply prospectively. Subsequently, the AO issued a s. 148 notice alleging that income had escaped assessment. This was challenged by the assessee on the ground that as the s. 195/197 orders had been passed after full application of mind, the reopening was based on a “change of opinion”. HELD dismissing the Petition:
(i) It is well settled that orders passed u/s 195(2) and 197 are provisional and tentative. These orders do not bind the AO in regular assessment proceedings. and do not preempt the Department from passing appropriate orders of assessment. The fact that a determination u/s 195 & 197 is an “order” subject to challenge u/s 264 does not make any difference (Dodsal 260 ITR 507 (Bom) & Elbee Services 247 ITR 109 (Bom) followed);
(ii) Under Explanation 2 (a) to s. 147, a case where no return is filed is deemed to be a case where income has escaped assessment. On a conjoint reading of s. 195 and 197, if any opinion is expressed at the time of grant of certificate it is tentative or provisional or interim in nature and does not debar the AO from initiating proceeding u/s 147 on the ground that there has been a change of opinion.
Note: A payer who has acted as per s. 195(2) order cannot be held to be in default as held in
CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court) &
Jaipur Udyog vs. CIT 155 ITR 476 (Raj)
Related Posts:
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
- PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (Delhi High Court) The startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot…
- PCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court) Now, coming to the aspect viz the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search action against a third person. We may note that the AO has used this statement on oath recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third…
- New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
Leave a Reply