Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : & SHRI KULDIP SINGH:
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10 Income-tax Officer (TDS), Vs. U.P.State Agro Industrial Moradabad. Corporation, Moradabad. PAN: LKNUO 5336 A ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. DR Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 29/02/2016. Date of order : 03/03/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:
This is revenue’s appeal against the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly, relating to A.Y. 2008-09. 2. None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. We proceed to dispose of the departmental appeals, ex parte, qua the assessee and in that process we have heard ld. DR and perused the record. 3. The assessee had filed its e-TDS statement and correction statement.
The AO on analysis of the return filed by assessee noted that there were defaults in the form of non-payment of TDS deducted, non/low deduction of TDS at prescribed rates and late payment of taxes. He determined the liability u/s 201(1) of Rs. 8,54,160/- and U/s 201(1A) of Rs. 2,47,710/-.
Ld. CIT(A) noted from the application filed by assessee that it had applied for amendment after filing PAN numbers of various parties on line but the benefit for the same was not granted by ITO(TDS), Moradabad.
5. Ld. CIT(A) after considering this application directed the AO to verify the assessee’s claim and pass suitable order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act. He also pointed out that if there was delay in depositing the due TDS, then interest as per rules should be charged accordingly. Being aggrieved, the department is in appeal before us.
Ld. DR submitted that the AO does not have power to revise the order because processing of TDS return are fully centralized at CPC, TDS Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
Having heard ld. DR we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) because the correct computation of short deduction/ non- deduction could be made only when the deductee’s PAN was duly updated on line. Merely because AO does not have access to CPC, TDS, the liability cannot be fastened on assessee. The AO is required to coordinate at proper level and do the needful in order to find out the correct short deduction, if any, of tax and then determine the assessee’s liability in accordance with law. We, accordingly, uphold the order of ld. CIT(A).
In the result, revenue’s appeals stand dismissed. Order pronouncement in open court on 03/03/2016.