M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,AMBALA vs. JCIT, AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3452/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 February 2017AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the appeal to be technical in nature, requiring verification and correction by ITD system personnel. As the CIT(A) had already directed rectification, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to adjudicate further.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank received a demand under Section 201(1)/201(1A) due to an automated system error that identified deductee PAN numbers as invalid, leading to a TDS calculation at 20%. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to rectify this system defect.

What were the issues?

Whether the demand raised under Section 201(1)/201(1A) due to an automated system error regarding invalid PANs is sustainable. The procedural correctness of rectifying system defects by the IT department.

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, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI & SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 22.02.2017Pronounced: 27.02.2017

ORDER

PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee 1. against the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by Ld. CIT (A) for assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds of appeal:

1. That the order passed by Ld AO is illegal, arbitrary has been passed in a Haste and has ignored basic aspects and facts of the case and under section 201(1A)/201(1A) by Ld CIT (A) is erred in confirming the same, thus causing undue hardship to the assessee.

2.

That The Ld Assessing Officer is not justified in penelty of tax u/s 156 in laws on facts and in circumstances.

3. That the TDS return is not exists on NSDL / TRACES for which penalty is lavied. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal

before or at the time of hearing.

2. Ld. DR at the outset submitted that the demand has been raised under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act due to invalid selection of PAN numbers of deductee’s by the automated system due to TDS at the rate of 20% has been calculated Ld. DR referred to comments of Ld. AO reproduced in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been admitted by Ld. AO that short deduction demand has been traced due to the PAN number being considered as invalid, in case of deductee’s and has been wrongly created by ITD system.

3.

From the order passed by Ld. CIT (A), it is observed that necessary directions to Ld. AO have been passed in order to rectify the system defect.

4.

Accordingly, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate the appeal as it is technical in nature, which could be verified and corrected by ITD system personnel and Ld. CIT(A) has directed Ld. AO to r4ectify the mistake by physical verification of the records.

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th February, 2017.

More judgments on Section 201

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →