M/S VARRSANA ISPAT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-TDS, WD-59(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It appears at the outset that the assessee’s instant four appeal(s) challenge correctness of both the lower authorities identical action raising Section 201(1) r.w. 201(1A) demands of ₹1,03,720 & ₹34,240/-, ₹7190 & ₹2,800, ₹14,90,150/- & ₹5,36,454/- & ₹13,410/- and ₹4,430; (appeal-wise); respectively by concluding that there has been short deduction / collection of tax in corresponding quarters at its behest.

Learned counsel representing assessee takes us to the CIT(A)’s common order (supra) for the instant sole issue rejecting its arguments by way of the following discussion:- “4. The appellant or its AR didn’t avail of the opportunity of being heard. From the submission, dt NIL it appears that the claim is that there is no short deduction in respect of various payments hit by the provisions of sec. 194A, 194I & 194J of Income Tax Act, 1961. When the submission was received, a copy of the same was sent to the AO for the required verification and report. Vide the AO's report, dt. 07.11.2014 it is seen that the appellant has made payments without obtaining the PANs or wrong PANs were entered in the TDS statement. The AO is of the view that the appellant has defaulted. The Assessing Officer's said report is vague and doesn’t help appreciate when he wants to say even in respect of the points covered in his so called remand report dt. 07.11.2014.

The appellant apparently is not keen for hearing. The TDS liability u/s. 201 of the ITA Act, 1961 is determined by the system called TRACES. The appellant has not even indicated whether it tried to rectify the statement is TRACES. It is also not known if it tried what was the difficulty in updating the TDS details in the said TRACES. A case like this is first attempted by accessing the TRACES facility which forms the base f the order u/s.

In case of difficulty in reducing liability to an amount agreeable to the tax deductor, the issues are expected to be bought to the knowledge of the AO or CIT(A) ho can take corrective steps to align mismatch to the liability in terms of the Act and Rules. The appellant is silent on whether any attempt was made to rectify the TRACES working. The AR or the appellant has failed to take- up the matte before me as is clear from the non-compliance to various notices described above. I, therefore am not in a position to even appreciate how the grievance if any can be addressed by the AO or the CIT(A). I feel that no further time will help resolve the grievances if any. I have no reason to interfere with the order appealed against. The grounds therefore, are not allowed and the appeal is dismissed.” There is no dispute that the factual position relating to the impugned demand is very much identical in assessee’s fourth appeal as well.