GAD LOGISTICS (I) P LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(4), MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2005-06 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 01/08/2014 qua confirmation of certain additions for TDS default and interest thereupon u/s 201(1) & 201(1A).

Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident corporate assessee, having TAN MUMG04290G was engaged in the business of handling and transporting containers. The assessee was subjected to a survey u/s 133A for verification of deduction of TDS on 20/09/2007 and consequently saddled with a demand for TDS defaults on certain contractual payments, rental payments and professional fees u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 28/03/2011. The total demand thus raised amounted to Rs.3,24,179/- which comprised of Rs.1,88,476/- for non-deduction of TDS and Rs.1,35,703/- as consequential interest thereupon. The same was assailed without any success before First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01/08/2014, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR], Shri Bhupendra Shah, while accepting the said demand, drew our attention to the fact that the assessee was saddled with the same demand for same default in AY 2004-2005 also and therefore, being penalized twice for the same default. It was further contended that the assessee has duly deposited the demand for AY 2004-05 as per the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the same addition is not warranted for in the impugned AY. Per contra, Ld. DR asserted that the facts may GAD Logistics (I) Private Limited Assessment Year 2005-2006 be verified by the Ld. AO to find out whether the demand raised against the assessee for both the years was identical in all respect. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. A perusal of orders of Ld. AO for 2004-05 & 2005-06 passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) prima facie reveals that exactly the same demand has been raised and further the figures are also identical. Therefore, while holding that the assessee could not be penalized twice for the same default, we restore the matter back to the file of AO for limited purpose of verifying whether both the demand relates to same default and whether the assessee has settled demand for AY 2004-05. If so, the demand for impugned AY may be deleted. The Assessee, in turn, is also directed to substantiate the same before AO failing which the AO shall be at liberty to decide the matter after perusal of available material on record. 5. The assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.