TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction of TDS plus interest thereon u/s 201 of the Act - short-deduction between the revenue and assessee is for the reason that the revenue has computed deductible amount of TDS on gross salary , whereas the assessee has computed TDS deductible on the basis of net salary i.e. gross salary (-) deductions under Chapter VI-A - HELD THAT:- We observe that the approach of assessee is in accordance with the provisions of TDS as prescribed in Income-tax Act, 1961, which permit the consideration of deductions under Chapter- VIA while computing deductible amount of TDS. Therefore, we do not find any mistake in assessee s action. That brings us to observe that the revenue authorities have wrongly computed short-deduction of Rs. 56,650/- and consequently interest thereon of Rs. 28,590/-. We do not find any merit in these demands created by revenue which are not as per law. Therefore, we delete these demands. Resultantly, Ground No. 2 to 4 are allowed. Default in timely payment of TDS u/s 201 - HELD THAT:- As assessee admits delay in payment of TDS, although the assessee has pleaded reasons for delay, which again are multiple and vague. We note that TDS once deducted is a money belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserve that the Co-ordinate Bench Agra in the case of Sudershan Goyal Vs DCIT (TDS) ITA No.442/Agra/2017 order dated 09.04.2018 considering the similar issue deciding in favour of the assessee observed as follows:- The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Before 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such, as per the assessee, in respect of TDS statement filed for a period prior to 01.06.2015, no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act. 3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing the mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments. The ld. CIT(A) has held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aj Singhvi and Others' (supra), 'Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS)', order dated 09.06.2015 passed in ITA No.90/ASR/2015, for A.Y.2013-14, by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal, and 'Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS) Ghaziabad', order dated 15.09.2016, in ITA No.378/ASR/2015, for A.Y. 2012-13, I.T.A No. 442/Agra/2017 S.A. No. 01/Agra/2018 the grievance of the assessee is accepted as justified. The order under appeal is reversed. The levy of the fee is cancelled. 11. We, therefore respectfully following above decisions are of the opinion that in the given set of facts of the instant appeals wherein fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied in the statements processed u/s 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015 i.e. before the amendment brought into effect from 01.06.2015 in section 200A of the Act thereby enabling the revenue authorities to raise demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act by the assessing officer. Accordingly findings of Ld. CIT(A) in all these 10 appeals are reversed as we have recently taken a considered view against the revenue on earlier orders of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving complete reasons along with supporting. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO of an amount of Rs.57640/- on account of short deduction and Rs. 28590/- on account of interest on same u/s 201 of IT Act. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. (5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO of an amount of Rs. 14410/- on account of default in payment of Interest on TDS u/s 201 of IT Act, 1961. The Appellant prays that the said appeal be admitted and adjudicated on merits. (6) That the sec. 200A of the Act does not permit processing of TDS statement for default in payment of late fees, except any arithmetical error, or incorrect claim, or default in payment of interest on any TDS payable or refundable etc. Hence late fees for TDS quarterly statement cannot be recovered by way of processing under sec 200A. Therefore demand notice cannot be issued under this section, but if iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tfully submitted that the net income of deductees i.e. Hemant Kumar Patwa and Jayant Kumar Patwa from Patwa Abhikaran Pvt. ltd. was Rs.12,00,100 and Rs. 12,53,297 respectively which are supported by form 16 and computation of their income tax return enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. TDS deductible on such amount of payment was Rs.2,71,951 and 2,88,390 respectively. However actual TDS deducted and paid was Rs.2,75,000 and Rs.3,00,000 which is also supported by 26AS enclosed herewith of Hemant Kumar Patwa and Jayant Kumar Patwas respectively which means TDS was already deposited in excess. Further the evidences regarding payment of self-assessment tax challans are also enclosed for your kind perusal since the deductees i.e. Hemant Kumar Patwa and Jayant Kumar Patwa had also paid the amount of self-assessment tax on other income before filing of Income Tax returns. That as per Sec. 192B of Income-tax Act, TDS is required to be deducted on amount of salary paid to dedcutee after deducting the amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A i.e. on income chargeable to tax and not on gross salary . 12. Before us, Ld. AR reiterated the same submission as made before Ld. CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not have any mala fide intention in the matter using the amount for any personal gain. We observe that the assessee admits delay in payment of TDS, although the assessee has pleaded reasons for delay, which again are multiple and vague. We note that TDS once deducted is a money belonging to exchequer and timely payment to Govt. A/c is mandated under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, section 201 prescribes levy of interest in clear terms. Therefore, the levy of interest is statutory and the assessee has to bear the same and the reasons advanced by assessee cannot exonerate from levy of interest. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant any relief to assessee on this account. Ground No. 5 is thus dismissed. 14. In Ground No. 6, the assessee has challenged levy of late fee. On perusal of record, we find that this ground, although raised by assessee, was not even before Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has also made a wrong mention of this grievance in concluding part of his order. It appears, therefore, this Ground has been taken by assessee too but the grievance of late fee does not emanate from the record. Therefore, we dismiss Ground No. 6. 15. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
