KOLKATA METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS), CIR-58, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–24, Kolkata, in Appeal No.1327/CIT(A)- 24/Kol/2014-15, dated 18.01.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the AO u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 28.03.2014. 2.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) For the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-24, Kol is bad in law and as well as facts. 2) Further, ld. CIT(A) erred not in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the Demand from Rs.52,22,641/- to Rs.3,73,293/-. 3) For the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the Demand of Rs.3,73,293/- without appreciating facts of the case. 4) For the Appellant prays for the right to put, add and alter additional grounds at the time of appeal.”

Aggrieved by the addition made by the Assessing Officer (TDS), the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) noted as details submitted by the assessee, that in respect of all deductees as listed, delay in months being difference in Column-16 and Column-14 was of two months. The delay as computed was not of 60 days but 2 months periods has to be taken because rate of interest was to be computed on the basis of per month or part of month. The CIT(A) observed that in respect of the final demand as appearing in the system chart of Rs.3,73,292/- even the assessee seems to be agreeing and noted that only dispute was whether the bank was to be held responsible or the assessee deductor. In calculation of interest in the assessee`s case it was hardly material who was to be blamed for the delay.In other words, there was delay and interest will follow on the said delay in terms of section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A),based on the above findings, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Not being satisfied with the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee has submitted before us that there was no mistake on the part of the assessee and it was the mistake committed by the bank authorities in remitting TDS amount to the Government exchequer, and, therefore, the assessee should not be penalized.The said mistake was supposed to have been rectified by the bank. Therefore, there was no any mistake on the part of the assessee in depositing the TDS amount into Page | 2