9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndonation of delay explaining such delay as under:- "Applicant has filed the accompanying appeal challenging the order dated 6.2.2015 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), which is late by 357 days. The reasons for delayed filing of appeal are as under: 1. That the impugned order dated 6.2.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not served on the Applicant. However, on the enquiry made by the Applicant in the last week of Nov., 2015, it transpired that order has already been passed in the matter. 2. That immediately thereafter certified copy of the order was applied which was made available to the Applicant on 30.11.2015. Thereafter Applicant sought advice from its counsel which was received on 21.12.2015. 3. That thereafter approval of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee by mistake deducted TDS u/s 194J of the Act instead of 194C of the Act on the payments made by the assessee. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that since payments made by the assessee does not fall under professional or technical services the assessee is not obliged to deduct TDS u/s 194J but only the provisions of section 194C were attracted. 5. Ld. Counsel further referring to ground no.7 of grounds of appeal submits that if at all the TDS is liable to be deducted u/s 194J the computation of interest demand u/s 201(1A) is incorrect for the reason that the rate of TDS u/s 194J till 31.05.2007 was 5.61% which was increased to 11.33% w.e.f. 01.06.2007. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for TDS under section 194J of the I.T. Act instead of 194C as was wrongly applied by the assessee. Accordingly, assessee deducted and recovered the shortfall of Rs. 1.02 Crores and deposited the same in government account while TDS returns were accordingly filed and TDS certificates were issued to the payees. Since the appellant has voluntarily admitted that the payments against impugned services were covered by provisions of section 194J of the I.T. Act, no order under section 201 has been passed in this case. As such the issue of applicability of provisions of section 194J looses its relevance since tax has already been deducted by the assessee under section 194J which were subsequently deposited, TDS return filed and Form 16A iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer u/s 201(1A) is as per law. It is also observed that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the dispute in appeal is only with regard to charging of interest u/s 201(1A) which was rightly made by the Assessing Officer for the delayed deposit of TDS. We do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. However, the assessee in ground no. 7 of grounds of appeal contends that interest u/s 201(1A) was incorrectly charged. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to look into the contention of the assessee with regard to incorrect levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act and pass order afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. Ground no.7 of grounds of appeal is allowed for statistical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
