DATTA MEGHE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 399/NAG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 June 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed paid TDS well within the due date as per bank statements. The assessee also demonstrated due diligence by promptly writing to the bank to correct the recorded dates. The AO and CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the interest without verifying the actual payment dates.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed to have tendered TDS within the due date, but bank officials recorded subsequent dates. The Assessing Officer (AO) charged interest under Section 201(1A) based on the bank's recorded dates, and the CIT(A) confirmed this order. The assessee argued that the bank's dates were incorrect and they had taken steps to rectify the discrepancy.

What were the issues?

Whether interest under Section 201(1A) for late payment of TDS is justified when the assessee proves actual payment within the due date, despite bank recording subsequent dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A),Section 200A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

Hearing: 08.06.2022Pronounced: 10.06.2022

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 18/09/2017 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

An order u/s 201(1A) of the Act has been passed against the Assessee on 22.05.2016 by charging interest at Rs.34,320/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide

Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciencevs. PCIT order dated 18.09.2017 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO.

3.

Aggrieved by the same, the assesse has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds . “1. Order passed u/s 200A of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest charged on late payment of TDS at Rs.34,257/- by A.O. u/s 201(1A) of I.T. Act 1961 without giving reasonable opportunity and without considering statement of facts along with memo of appeal.

3. Interest charged by A.O. u/s 201(1 A) and confirmed by CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

4. The learned A.O. ought not have charged interest u/s 201(1 A) of I.T. Act 1961 as assessee has deposited the cheques of payment of tax deducted at source within due date and same have been encashed from bank account of assessee before due date of payment.

5. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

4.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee and also the Ld. DR, verified the materials on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessee has tendered TDS before the due date and the amount has been already deducted from the Assessee’s bank account, but the Bank officials have mentioned the subsequent dates as the date of tendering the TDS. On the other hand the Ld. AO has considered the date mentioned by the Bank officials, but not considered the actual date of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciencevs. PCIT tendering the TDS by the Assessee. The details of the payment made by the Assessee are as under:

Date of Payment Sr. No Date of Clearing Date in Challan Challan considered while Page No. Tender bank Amount Amount Levying Interest 1 03.03.2016 05.03.2016 09.03.2016 2,484 15 2 03.03.2016 05.03.2016 09.03.2016 4,92,738 16 03.03.2016 3 05.03.2016 09.03.2016 2,524 4,97,746 17 4 25.04.2016 27.04.2016 ’ ' 02.05.2016 1,836 18 5 25.04.2016 27.04.2016 02.05.2016 78 18 25.04.2016 27.04.2016 02.05.2016 6 2,286 18 7 25.04.2016 27.04.2016 02.05.2016 8,236 19 8 25.04.2016 28.04.2016 02.05.2016 1,45,633 19 9 25.04.2016 27.04.2016 02.05.2016 4,92,850 19 10 27.04.2016 29.04.2016 02.05.2016 1,584 20 11 27.04.2016 29.04.2016 02.05.2016 465 20 12 27.04.2016 29.04.2016 02.05.2016 122 6,53,090 20 Thus Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the orders of the lower authorities are erroneous and deserves to be set aside by the Tribunal.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR could not dispute the factual matrix put forth by the Assessee and therefore relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the parties and verified the material on record. As per the Bank statement the Assessee, the Assessee has paid TDS well within the due date. Apart from the same, Assessee has also shown the due diligence, when the Bank officials have put the stamp mentioning the subsequent date as tendering the TDS, immediately wrote letters on 18-03-2016 and 04-05-2016

Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciencevs. PCIT respectively by bringing the fact of tendering the TDS well within due date and sought certificate for the delay from the Bank. Further, the Ld. A.O. has passed the order charging the interest u/s 201 sub-section (1A) of the Act in a mechanical manner, without finding and verifying the fact regarding actual dates of payment of TDS made by the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also committed an error in confirming the order passed u/s 200(1A) of the Act. Therefore, we allow the grounds of appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

6. In result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 10th Day of June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →