M/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GHAZIABAD

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the intimation dated 14 December 2013 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS CPC,

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the demand raised pursuant to processing of statement of tax deduction at source under section 200A was erroneous to the extent such demand did not arise on account of any arithmetical error in the statement or an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement and therefore such could not be raised under the provisions of section 200A of the Act.

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the intimation dated 14 December 2013 issued by Ld. AO under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued in violation of section 154(3) of the Act and principles of natural justice to the extent the appellant was not provided an opportunity to show cause as to why the appellant should not be considered as an assessee in default in accordance with the provisions of section 201 (1) of the Act.

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the cancellation of certificates, issued by Ld. AO under section 197 of the Act for authorizing deduction of taxes at lower rate, was against principle of natural justice and was bad in law.

The “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating the fact that online facility for verification of validity of lower/ nil tax deduction certificates was not functional at the time of deduction of taxes by appellant on payments to the payees.

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that appellant should not be considered to be an assessee in default’ in accordance with the first proviso to section 201 (1) of the Act.

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the demand is raised without conducting verification whether payee has paid taxes on the income or not.

That the “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the demand is raised without complying with the first proviso to section 201 and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to furnish Form 26A.

The “Ld. CIT(A)” erred in facts and in law in upholding the levy of interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act on account of alleged short-deduction of taxes.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company deducted TDS from payments made to various Indian Parties. Accordingly, the appellant filed its quarterly TDS statement in prescribed Form No. 26Q for the quarter ending

The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not in default once he was not made aware of the cancellation of LTDC and no opportunity of being heard was given before cancellation of LTDC. Once, the assessee was supplied LTDC, the only obligation of the assessee was to deduct tax as per LTDC issued. Thereafter, there was no obligation of the assessee to examine for its cancellation from ITD once he was not supplied any cancellation order of LTDC. Hence, no interest liability is payable by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has violated the provisions of section 197(2) of the IT Act. The assessee had also filed form No. 26A duly certified by CA which was not considered by the ld. CIT(A) before deciding the appeal. He has also filed a written synopsis which is placed on record.

On the other hand, the ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the lower authority and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has given direction to the Assessing Officer for verification of cancellation of LTDC and its uploading on ITD. Even if

After hearing both the sides and perusing the materials available on record, we are of the opinion that before reaching to any definite conclusion in this appeal, various aspects of the case need verification at the stage of Assessing Officer. With reference to ground No. 6, the assessee has taken a plea that online facility for verification of validity of LTDC was not functional at the time of deduction of taxes by the appellant on payments to the payees and therefore, the assessee cannot be termed as assessee in default. This fact needs verification to ascertain the default of the assessee, particularly when no cancellation order of LTDC was supplied to the assessee. In ground No. 7, the assessee has objected that Annexure to Form 26A obtained from the payees was filed but the same has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A), whereas in ground No. 9, the assessee states that no opportunity was given to the assessee to furnish Form 26A. In this context, it is necessary to examine Form No. 26 and all its annexures filed by the payees and the assessee is required to furnish the same in its support for verification. Similarly, in ground No. 8 the assessee has challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to verify whether the payees have paid taxes on the income or not before saddling interest liability against the assessee. This fact also requires verification at the stage of Assessing Officer before holding the assessee in default. In presence of all these facts, we remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the core issue involved in this appeal after making due verification of the aforesaid aspects. Needless to

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.