GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), TDS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 439/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 June 2018AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was merit in the assessee's contention that the entire TDS on salaries was remitted. However, the AO had not provided details of the quantification of the demand, necessitating fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, remitted TDS on salaries, but some amounts were remitted on the TAN of the assessee and others on the PAN of respective employees. The AO initiated proceedings under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for alleged short deduction of TDS.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was in default for short deduction of TDS when amounts were remitted on employee PANs, and whether the AO's quantification of demand was properly substantiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI D. MANMOHAN & SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH

PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :

These two appeals are by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad, both dated 05-12-2016. Since the facts are common in both the appeals, these are heard together and decided by this common order. Assessing Officer (AO) has initiated proceedings u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act [Act] and after issuing a questionnaire, raised demand in the impugned years as under:

:- 2 -: ITA Nos. 439 & 440/Hyd/2017

A.Y. Date of Order Demand u/s. Demand u/s. Total demand 201(1) in Rs. 201(1A) in Rs. in Rs. 2012-13 11-03-2014 50,27,206 55,00,488 1,05,27,694 2013-14 11-03-2014 35,52,175 23,35,209 58,87,384 Total: 85,79,381 78,35,697 1,64,15,078

2.

It was contested by assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has deducted and remitted tax on the entire amount of salaries disbursed to its employees. However, while remitting the amounts into Income Tax account, some amounts are remitted on the TAN of the appellant and some amounts are remitted on the PAN of the respective employees for the year(s) concerned. It was further submitted that assessee has explained the issue clearly and has also ensured that there was no pending TDS or short deduction of TDS under the years concerned. However, this request was not considered and the TDS paid on PAN of employees was neither examined nor considered while passing the order. It was also contended that AO has not provided any information as regards the details of employees for whom the so called TDS was not deducted. It was contested that the quantification itself was not made available to assessee so that the same can be answered. It was further submitted that basing on the information readily available with assessee, a detailed statement giving the names of employees, amount of TDS remitted on their PANs in the year and also on the TAN of the employees was submitted. It was further submitted that GHMC has paid TDS of Rs. 29,38,256/- on the PANs of

:- 3 -: ITA Nos. 439 & 440/Hyd/2017

respective employees during the years [for AY. 2012-13] and similar amount of Rs. 33,60,341/- [for AY. 2013-14]. It was further submitted that it was only an error that has taken place in remittance of the TDS on the PANs of the respective employees but assessee has complied with all the TDS provisions. Ld.CIT(A) has remitted the matter to the file of AO on remand and the observations of the AO and JCIT, TDS were extracted in the order but ultimately, Ld.CIT(A) relied on the AO’s order on the reason that assessee has not responded and the remand reports were duely accepted.

3.

Contesting the order of Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that assessee has furnished statement of TDS payments, challans using PANs of employees to the CIT(A) [which was also placed in Paper Book before us] and submitted that inspite of remitting the amounts, the CIT(A) confirmed the order. It was submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of AO itself to be examined afresh.

4.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the Paper Book placed on record, we are of the opinion that there is merit in assessee’s contentions that the entire amount of TDS has been remitted or taxes have been paid on the salaries and there is no default. However, AO has not stated on whose salaries the TDS has not been made and how the amount of Rs. 85,79,381/- was determined in both the years and as per assessee it would certainly explain if details of quantification

:- 4 -: ITA Nos. 439 & 440/Hyd/2017

was made available. Since these aspects require verification by the AO, we are of the opinion that the orders u/s. 201 and 201(1A) are to be set aside and entire issue is to be restored to the file of AO for fresh examination and determination of the amount on which TDS has not been made by assessee and consequent interest if any. Assessee should be given due opportunity and the evidence furnished, even in the course of remand proceedings, should be examined properly. With these directions, the issue in both the years is restored to the file of AO for fresh consideration as per the facts and law.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th June, 2018

Sd/- Sd/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 6th June, 2018 TNMM

:- 5 -: ITA Nos. 439 & 440/Hyd/2017

Copy to : 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Head Office), Near Tank Bund, Liberty Circle, Hyderabad.

2.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(2)(TDS), Hyderabad.

3.

CIT(Appeals)-8, Hyderabad.

4.

CIT-(TDS), Hyderabad.

5.

D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.

6.

Guard File.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →