For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

In the instant case, the grounds of appeal are—

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to verify demand/payment and pass fresh order without considering the provision of sub section (a) of section 251(1).

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the demand ( 72,49,843/- & 21,05,618/- for second quarter for FY 2013-14 & fourth quarter for FY 2012-13 respectively) created on account of wrong/invalid PAN without considering the provisions of section 206AA which is mandatory in nature.

Held that—The Revenue has treated the TDS deduction by treating the party having a PAN number and thus applying the higher TDS @ 20% whereas as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherland, the rate of tax is 10% along with interest. Assessee has also paid interest for late payment. Assessee has also made payment on account of late filing of return fee.
So far as demand of 10,82,594/- on account of short deduction of 72,49,843.84 is concerned, the same is not sustainable as it is not the case of short deduction but it is the case of wrongly applying the TDS rate by losing sight of DTAA between India and Netherland. Insofar as demand for fourth quarter (FY 2012-13) deduction for 2,10,200/- is concerned, the Revenue has treated this transaction with incorrect PAN numbers and has applied TDS @ 20%. It is also not in dispute that when the correct PAN numbers of the concerned employees is mentioned in the revised TDS return, the demand would come to nil. However, the assessee has agreed to deposit interest demand as well as late filing fee on account of late deposit of tax. When we examine all the aforesaid facts in the light of undisputed fact that final assessment is still pending with the Department, the appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT (A) was not maintainable as the assessee has categorically made submission that interest demand on account of late deposit of tax and late filing of return, demand is being deposited by the assessee, there was no question of deleting the demand raised as all these facts were to be examined by the AO during assessment on the basis of submissions made by the assessee. Section 200A of the Act is a self-contained procedure to process the statement of tax deduction at source after making adjustment of any arithmetic error or incorrect claim. Furthermore, the assessee has made an undertaking before the Commissioner that it is revising the return for incorporating the PAN numbers of those employees which will otherwise lead to the demand nil and in case of demand for second quarter for FY 2013-14, no interest shall be charged as the demand itself would not be sustainable.
We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the demand particularly when assessment proceedings qua the year under assessment are already pending with the Department, hence present appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 9, 40, 90, 195, 200A, 251 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the grounds of appeal are—

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to verify demand/payment and pass fresh order without considering the provision of sub section (a) of section 251(1).
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the demand ( 72,49,843/- & 21,05,618/- for second quarter for FY 2013-14 & fourth quarter for FY 2012-13 respectively) created on account of wrong/invalid PAN without considering the provisions of section 206AA which is mandatory in nature.

Held that—The Revenue has treated the TDS deduction by treating the party having a PAN number and thus applying the higher TDS @ 20% whereas as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherland, the rate of tax is 10% along with interest. Assessee has also paid interest for late payment. Assessee has also made payment on account of late filing of return fee.
So far as demand of 10,82,594/- on account of short deduction of 72,49,843.84 is concerned, the same is not sustainable as it is not the case of short deduction but it is the case of wrongly applying the TDS rate by losing sight of DTAA between India and Netherland. Insofar as demand for fourth quarter (FY 2012-13) deduction for 2,10,200/- is concerned, the Revenue has treated this transaction with incorrect PAN numbers and has applied TDS @ 20%. It is also not in dispute that when the correct PAN numbers of the concerned employees is mentioned in the revised TDS return, the demand would come to nil. However, the assessee has agreed to deposit interest demand as well as late filing fee on account of late deposit of tax.

When we examine all the aforesaid facts in the light of undisputed fact that final assessment is still pending with the Department, the appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT (A) was not maintainable as the assessee has categorically made submission that interest demand on account of late deposit of tax and late filing of return, demand is being deposited by the assessee, there was no question of deleting the demand raised as all these facts were to be examined by the AO during assessment on the basis of submissions made by the assessee.

Section 200A of the Act is a self-contained procedure to process the statement of tax deduction at source after making adjustment of any arithmetic error or incorrect claim. Furthermore, the assessee has made an undertaking before the Commissioner that it is revising the return for incorporating the PAN numbers of those employees which will otherwise lead to the demand nil and in case of demand for second quarter for FY 2013-14, no interest shall be charged as the demand itself would not be sustainable.
We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the demand particularly when assessment proceedings qua the year under assessment are already pending with the Department, hence present appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.[ACIT, CIRCLE 73 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS AIR INDIA LIMITED] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [20] [ITAT DELHI]

In the instant case, the grounds of appeal are—

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to verify demand/payment and pass fresh order without considering the provision of sub section (a) of section 251(1).

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the demand ( 72,49,843/- & 21,05,618/- for second quarter for FY 2013-14 & fourth quarter for FY 2012-13 respectively) created on account of wrong/invalid PAN without considering the provisions of section 206AA which is mandatory in nature.

Held that—The Revenue has treated the TDS deduction by treating the party having a PAN number and thus applying the higher TDS @ 20% whereas as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherland, the rate of tax is 10% along with interest. Assessee has also paid interest for late payment. Assessee has also made payment on account of late filing of return fee.
So far as demand of 10,82,594/- on account of short deduction of 72,49,843.84 is concerned, the same is not sustainable as it is not the case of short deduction but it is the case of wrongly applying the TDS rate by losing sight of DTAA between India and Netherland. Insofar as demand for fourth quarter (FY 2012-13) deduction for 2,10,200/- is concerned, the Revenue has treated this transaction with incorrect PAN numbers and has applied TDS @ 20%. It is also not in dispute that when the correct PAN numbers of the concerned employees is mentioned in the revised TDS return, the demand would come to nil. However, the assessee has agreed to deposit interest demand as well as late filing fee on account of late deposit of tax. When we examine all the aforesaid facts in the light of undisputed fact that final assessment is still pending with the Department, the appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT (A) was not maintainable as the assessee has categorically made submission that interest demand on account of late deposit of tax and late filing of return, demand is being deposited by the assessee, there was no question of deleting the demand raised as all these facts were to be examined by the AO during assessment on the basis of submissions made by the assessee. Section 200A of the Act is a self-contained procedure to process the statement of tax deduction at source after making adjustment of any arithmetic error or incorrect claim. Furthermore, the assessee has made an undertaking before the Commissioner that it is revising the return for incorporating the PAN numbers of those employees which will otherwise lead to the demand nil and in case of demand for second quarter for FY 2013-14, no interest shall be charged as the demand itself would not be sustainable.
We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the demand particularly when assessment proceedings qua the year under assessment are already pending with the Department, hence present appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 9, 40, 90, 195, 200A, 251 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the grounds of appeal are—

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to verify demand/payment and pass fresh order without considering the provision of sub section (a) of section 251(1).
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the demand ( 72,49,843/- & 21,05,618/- for second quarter for FY 2013-14 & fourth quarter for FY 2012-13 respectively) created on account of wrong/invalid PAN without considering the provisions of section 206AA which is mandatory in nature.