DCIT, TDS, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ABHIBUS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

First, we will deal with Revenue appeal i.e., ITA No.1892/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2022-23. 3. It is stated before us that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.60 lakhs and, therefore, the Circular No.279/Misc./M- 74/2024-ITJ, dated 17th September, 2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued in amendment to Circular 5 of 2024 under Sec.268A(1) of the I.T. Act comes into play, wherein, the monetary limit for filing the appeals by the Revenue before the ITAT and various High Courts as well as Apex Court are revised with an object of the reducing the tax litigation. Vide para 2 of the said circular (supra), it is stated that in cases where the tax effect in the appeals to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal does not exceed Rs.60 lakhs appeals should not be filed. Thus, taking a note of CBDT Circular No.(F.279/Misc./M074/ 2024- ITJ), dated 17/09/2024 and considering the fact that the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than Rs.60 lakhs, the captioned appeal deserves to be dismissed as not pressed/not maintainable. However, we make it clear that, the issues raised in the instant appeal are left open to be examined in the appropriate proceedings, if arises, in future. At the same time, we also make it clear that, if the appeal falls in any of the exceptions referred to in the above said CBDT Circular, the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order, if so, advised.

Accordingly in the light of CBDT Circular No. No.(F.279/Misc./M074/2024-ITJ),dated 17/09/2024, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Now, we will take up assessee’s appeals i.e., ITA Nos.2106/ Hyd/2025 and ITA Nos.2259 to 2263/Hyd/2025 pertaining to the A.Ys. 2022-23 and 2020-21. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of aggregation of bus operators, providing software to bus operators (private and government), sale of train tickets and booking of hotel rooms. During the course of its business, the assessee company made various payments which were liable for deduction of tax at source under various provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is seen that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 02.12.2021 to examine the TDS provisions. Consequent thereto, orders u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act were passed for the relevant assessment years determining short deduction of TDS u/s 201(1), consequential interest u/s 201(1A), and, in certain cases, interest u/s 220(2) of the Act, on delayed payment of demand. For A.Y. 2020-21, there are five appeals in respect of separate orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on the basis of quarterly returns filed in Forms 24Q and 26Q for Quarter Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of F.Y. 2019-20. The total disputed amount in respect of interest u/s 220(2) is Rs. 2,67,559/-, and late fee u/s 234E is Rs. 1,67,828/-. For A.Y. 2022-23, the disputed amount involved in the assessee company's appeal is Rs. 1,04,877/-, which includes interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act.

The learned counsel for the assessee company, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A., submitted that the issues involved in these appeals relate to the levy of late fee u/s 234E and interest charged u/s 220(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21 and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2022-23. There are no details as to the period for which interest has been charged by the A.O., and the said fact needs to be verified. The assessee company further submitted that, even though the period of delay is two months, the A.O. has charged interest for four months. However, no details as to the period of delay are available in the orders passed by the A.O. All these facts were explained before the Ld. CIT(A), but the Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the same. Therefore, he submitted that these appeals may be set aside to the file of the A.O. to give one more opportunity to the assessee company to submit the details of payment of TDS for computing consequential interest and, in a few cases, late fee u/s 234E of the Act. In case there is any delay in payment of the disputed tax, the A.O. may verify the same and levy interest, if any, u/s 220(2) of the Act, as per law.

The Ld. Sr. AR for the Revenue, Shri K. Prasad, on the other hand, fairly agreed that the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O. for verification of the facts in the light of the submissions of the assessee company and to determine the levy of interest and late fee, wherever applicable, as per law.

We heard both the parties, perused the material available on record, and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issues involved in these appeals relate to the levy of late fee u/s 234E, interest charged u/s 220(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21 and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2022-23. Further, the assessee company has challenged the levy of interest u/s 220(2) of the Act in some appeals and interest u/s 201(1A) in the appeal for the assessment year 2022-23. The assessee company claims that it has paid whatever demand was raised by the A.O. for short deduction of TDS and consequential interest u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). However, the dispute is only with regard to the levy of interest u/s 220(2) and late fee u/s 234E of the Act. It is claimed that there is a mistake in the computation of interest levied by the A.O., for which the assessee company has referred to the impugned orders, wherein, in one or two cases, although the period of delay is two months, the A.O. has charged interest for four months. The facts are not clear. Neither do the orders of the A.O. show any details as to the computation of interest and the period of delay in payment, etc., nor is the assessee company able to furnish any details except claiming that it has paid the demand raised by the A.O. for short deduction of TDS and the consequential interest. Since the facts are not clear and the assessee company is disputing the interest charged u/s 220(2) and late fee u/s 234E, and interest u/s 201(1A), in our considered view, the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the juri ictional A.O. Thus, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in all these appeals and restore the issues to the file of the juri ictional A.O. The juri ictional A.O. is directed to verify the claim of the assessee company in the light of our discussion hereinabove and also in the light of any evidence that may be filed by the assessee company to justify its case.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. 4. तवभागीयप्रतततनतर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गार्ाफ़ाईि / Guard file