CIT vs. UDAY SHARMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . . . ITA 268/2012 . . . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. . . . versus . . . . . UDAY SHARMA ..... Respondent . Through Mr. B.L. Chibber and Mr. Mahesh B. Chibber, Advocates. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 07.05.2012 . . . The respondent-assessee had filed return of income of Rs.2,03,130/- , which after detailed scrutiny was accepted by the assessment order dated 10th December, 2008. . 2. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed two orders. The first order dated 31st May, 2010 was under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). The second order was a corrigendum thereto dated 10th June, 2010. Invoking his power to rectify defects under Section 154, he made an addition of Rs.2,00,82,270/- by invoking Section 40(ia). The reason given was that the assessee had filed declarations in Form 15- J before the Commissioner of Income Tax on 5th July, 2006, but the declarations should have been filed on or before 30th June, 2006. . 3. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the said addition. . 4. The tribunal after examining the provisions of Section 194C(3) observed that the Assessing Officer could not have made the said additions as it was debatable and two views were possible. The tribunal . has noticed that the payments made in a single case/instance may be less than Rs.20,000/- i.e. the amount stipulated in Section 194C(3)(i). The tribunal has referred to the first proviso to Section 194C(3)(i), in which it was stipulated that no deduction of tax was required if the total aggregate payment to one person does not exceed Rs.50,000/-. . 5. Before us, it is not the case of the Revenue that the exact details with regard to the payments made of Rs.20,000/- or Rs.50,000/- were available with the Assessing Officer, when he had passed the assessment order. This aspect was also not examined by the Assessing Officer when he had passed the order under Section 154 and the corrigendum thereto. Copy and details of Form No.15-J have not been filed before us and there is no averment and reference to evidence and material to show that the payments made exceeded the aforesaid amounts. Thus, the question/contention that required examination/decision was whether or not there was violation of Section 194C. This was debatable and a contentious question and issue, which could not have been decided in the proceedings for rectification of a mistake. It was not an obvious or patent mistake. There was a dispute about facts, which required verification and elucidation. . 6. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J. . MAY 07, 2012 . NA . . . 01 .