9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case while rejecting the appeals." 3. Brief facts of the case shows that the Assessee is a tax deductor, is a bank. A TDS inspection was conducted on 28.01.2014. During inspection statement of Chief Manager and Manager were recorded wherein, they have accepted that TDS on interest of term deposit is being made on annual basis and not on quarterly basis though such interest is being provided quarterly basis in the balance sheet. The ld AO after examination held that deductor is an "assessee in default' u/s 201(1) for not making TDS on interest payment of Rs. 14,88,56,291/- and therefore, it was also liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A). Such order was passed on 24.03.2014. The total amount of tax demand was raised of Rs. 3,74,10,430/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 21,28,983/- remained. 5. On appeal before the LD CIT (A) the Assessee contested the above issue also. The LD CIT (A) mentioned in para 6.2 of his order that the Assessee has taken only general grounds of appeal and there are no addition wise ground of appeal. But in the interest of justice, the entire submission of the appellant was considered in respect of entire demand of Rs. 3,74,10,430/- but at present remaining demand of Rs. 21,28,983/- in default pertaining to non submission of Form No. 15G and 15H accepted by the appellant bank and therefore, the facts and circumstances of the appeal have completely changed. 6. Before the LD CIT (A) the Assessee contested that all the form in Form No. 15G and 15H received by the deductor were al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 201(1A) of the Act on 24.03.2014 where the Assessee was found to be an assessee in default and also charged interest thereon comprising all the above sum. The appeal before the ld CIT(A) was filed on 23.04.2013, subsequently, on 18.09.2015 the ld AO has rectified the mistake apparent in the order and thereafter reduced the demand from Rs. 3,74,10,430/- to only Rs. 21,28,983/-. Thus, during the pendency of the appeal, the LD AO has rectified his mistake and reduced demand substantially. The LD CIT (A) in fact instead of appreciating that the issue of dispute has reduced to a considerable extent before him took an unacceptable approach and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on non sustainable ground as stated in para no. 6 of his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the tax demand of Rs. 3.74 crores was reduced to Rs. 21,28,983/-. In fact that is the error in the order of the ld AO. He should have computed the tax liability of the Assessee with utmost clarity. If the LD AO has not done his duty, the LD CIT (A) ought to have asked the LD AO for the remand report which he did not. Further, the ld CIT(A) in the order was also not correct in holding that the Assessee is not eligible to argue about the reduced demand after passing of the order u/s 154 of the Act and the Assessee should have filed a fresh appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. We are of the view that approach of the ld CIT(A) is pedantic not correct because it will put additional burden on the Assessee to cross the threshold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
