THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VIJAYAWADA vs. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that since the Pr. Commissioner's order, which formed the basis for the AO's consequential order, was quashed, the AO's order could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the AO's order was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee company's assessment order was set aside by the Pr. Commissioner, directing the AO to examine the applicability of Section 194H regarding trade incentives. The AO subsequently made a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). However, the ITAT had previously quashed the Pr. Commissioner's order, finding it neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
What were the issues?
Whether a consequential order passed by the AO based on a Pr. Commissioner's order that was subsequently quashed by the ITAT is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. Department By : Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR Date of hearing : 26/11/2020. Date of pronouncement : 27/11/2020. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of C.O.No.28/VIZ/2020 (M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, dated 12/03/2020 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
At the outset, ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted that the very basis on which 263 order passed by the Pr.Commissioner has been quashed by the ITAT, therefore ld.CIT(A) has cancelled the consequential order passed by the AO and submitted that appeal has to be dismissed.
Ld.DR simply relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below.
In this case, the assessee is a private limited company derives income from sale of Nokia products, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 admitting total income of Rs.10,86,812/-. The assessment was originally completed u/sec. 143(3) on 20/12/2016 determining the total income of Rs.14,31,630/-. The Pr.Commissioner, Vijayawada vide order u/sec. 263, dated 15/03/2019 set aside the order passed by the AO and directed the AO to redo the assessment by examining the applicability of section 194H of the Act in relation to trade incentives allowed by the assessee to its retailers. Accordingly, the AO has taken up the issue and after issuing notice, he passed a consequential order by disallowing an amount of C.O.No.28/VIZ/2020 (M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Rs.6,72,98,783/- u/sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act being trade incentives paid to its retailers for the default of non-compliance to the provisions of section 194H of the Act.
Meanwhile, the assessee has contested the order of the Pr.Commissioner passed u/sec. 263 dated 15/03/2019 before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam. The ITAT vide its order dated 31/12/2019 in relying on its order in assessee’s case itself for the A.Y. 2012-13 held that assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. Similarly, the incentives paid to its employees taken the character of salaries u/sec. 192 and no disallowance is warranted u/sec. 40(a)(ia) for the payment of salaries and set aside the order of the Pr.Commissioner u/sec. 263 and restored the original assessment order passed by the AO u/sec. 143(3) dated 20/12/2016. We find that ld. CIT(A) has correctly quashed the order passed by the AO for the reason that consequential order is passed on the basis of the order passed by the ld.Pr.Commissioner u/sec. 263 dated 15/03/2019. The very same order has been quashed by the ITAT in ITA No.151/VIZ/2019 dated 31/12/2019, therefore, the consequential order passed by the AO cannot survive. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly cancelled the order C.O.No.28/VIZ/2020 (M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.) passed by the AO. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
So far as cross objection filed by the assessee is concerned, it is only supportive to the order of the ld. CIT(A). As there is no grievance against the order of the ld. CIT(A), no separate orders are required to be passed, therefore the same is dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 27th day of Nov., 2020.
Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27th November, 2020. vr/- Copy to:
1. 1. The Assessee - M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., D.No. 36-14-2, Fusion Towers, Siddartha Public School Road, Vijayawada.
More judgments on Section 194H
- Mahesh Pulaveni, Adilabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 991/HYD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026