M/S SHREE NURSHINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL ENGG. (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-59(3) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1124/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 September 2018AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for an inadvertent mistake in depositing TDS. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the AO was directed to rectify the mistake and pass a suitable order.

What were the facts?

The assessee inadvertently deposited tax deducted at source (TDS) of Rs. 4,76,140/- against the deductee's PAN instead of the deductee's TAN. The AO recorded this fact, and the assessee did not retain any part of the TDS.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) for an inadvertent error in depositing TDS against the wrong identifier (PAN instead of TAN).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘D’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

Hearing: 03.09.2018

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-24, Kolkata, dated 17.03.2016 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act ‘) relating to A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The facts of the case have been brought out by the AO at para-1 of his order and by the ld. CIT(A) at para-3 of his order.

3.

After hearing rival contentions, we find that the only issue before us is, whether it is correct to treat the assessee, as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act, when the fact is, that the assessee has inadvertently made a mistake of depositing the tax deducted at source of Rs.4,76,140/- against PAN number of the deductee, instead of the TAN No. of the deductee. It is not a case where the assessee has retained any part of the tax deducted at source with it. This fact that the deposit was made against the PAN instead of the TAN is recorded by the AO.

M/s Shree Nursingsahay Mudungopal Engg. (P)Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 2

4.

The Jaipur Bench of ITAT in & 223/JP/2013 order dated 09.10.2015, has in similar circumstances held that, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench on the very same matter in the case of ITO vs TDS vs LIC of India (supra) we direct the AO to rectify the inadvertent mistake in this matter and pass a suitable order under the law. The order declaring the assessee as an assessee in default is hereby cancelled.

5.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 12.09.2018.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →