TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deductee whereas the assessee might have paid interest to a large number of persons, the assessee being a public sector bank. Since the mistake of quoting wrong PAN has been rectified in the revised TDS return filed by the assessee which has been accepted by the department, therefore, there is no justification in raising a demand on account of short deduction of TDS. Assessing Officer was not justified in adopting the rate of 20% as against 10%. We, therefore, delete the demand and interest thereon - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 211/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2016 - Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member And Shri O. P. Meena, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri Sharad Jain, JCA Respondent by : Shri Mohd. Javed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s deducted TDS @ 10% in the case of Shri Prafull Kumar Jain. The PAN of this person was quoted wrongly, hence, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 20%. Therefore, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of ₹ 8,780/- on account of short deduction of TDS and interest of ₹ 1,025/- on short deduction. Against this, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) who also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that correct PAN of the payee is available with the assessee, therefore, TDS liability is 10% instead of 20%. The correct PAN of payee has also bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.9.2015, CIT vs. Superintendent of Police (2012) 349 ITR 0550) (P H) wherein it was held that default is only with regard to wrong quoting of PANs of 196 deductees, such deductees quoted wrong PAN. However, correct PAN was given as soon as the default was brought to the notice of the assessee. Hence, penalty on the ground that the assessee deducted TDS correctly and revised return was filed correctly in compliance with the statutory provisions, there was sufficient compliance of provisions of section 139A regarding PAN. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the case of Vijay Siddhraj Bashte; (2014) 66 SOT 0068 (Pune). The learned counsel for the assessee also took shelter under Circular No. 75/2010 of CBDT which says that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed TDS return filed by the assessee which has been accepted by the department, therefore, there is no justification in raising a demand on account of short deduction of TDS. The case laws cited (supra) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee also support the case of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adopting the rate of 20% as against 10%. We, therefore, delete the demand of ₹ 8,780/- and interest thereon of ₹ 1,025/- as made by the authorities below. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order has been pronounced in open court on the 18th August, 2016. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
