ITO (TDS), MORADABAD vs. U.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1767/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 March 2016AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that correct computation of short deduction requires updated deductee PANs. The AO was directed to coordinate at the proper level to determine the correct liability.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed e-TDS statements, and the AO noted defaults in TDS payment, deduction, and late payment. The AO determined a liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim for amendment after PAN numbers were updated online.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO can determine TDS liability when deductee PANs are not updated online, and the process for rectifying such errors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : & SHRI KULDIP SINGH:

For Appellant: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. DR
Hearing: 29/02/2016

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/-.

4.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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).

5.

In the result, revenue’s appeals stand dismissed. Order pronouncement in open court on 03/03/2016.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →