ITO, TDS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD vs. DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee. However, the Revenue has challenged this order on the ground that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal without properly examining the factual matrix and legal provisions.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the revenue is in appeal before up. Specifically, it is the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) failed to verify whether the winners of the prize money were identifiable and genuine, and whether the threshold prescribed under Section 194B was indeed crossed in each transaction. The Revenue further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal without considering that each transaction of prize distribution, if exceeding the threshold, attracts TDS liability under Chapter XVII of the Act.

We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusal of the material available on record, find that at the time of passing of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) did not examine the issue of the identity and genuineness of the prize winners. The CIT(A) had not sufficiently examined whether the provisions of Section 194B were attracted on & 315/Coch/2025 ITO TDS, Palakkad a transaction-wise basis. Therefore, a proper factual verification is required to be examined. In light of the above, we find that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper verification of facts and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, is allowed for statistical purposes.

As the facts and issues are identical to those in our decision in that appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Accordingly is also allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are allowed statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.06.2025.