2017 (3) TMI 1880 - AT - Income Tax

Short deduction of TDS and interest on short deduction - assessee has deducted TDS @ 10% on deposits instead @20% due to clerical mistake - HELD THAT - As decided in M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE PVT. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT when the tax has been paid by the deductee-assessee the tax could not be recovered once again from the assessee. It is the claim of the assessee society that the deductee has paid the taxes hence the assessee is not liable to be for demand on account of short deduction of TDS. However this claim is not fully verified by the lower authorities. Therefore in the interest of justice and fair play this issue is restored back to the file of AO with the direction that the AO shall verify whether the short deduction on account of low rate of TDS has been paid by the payee / deductee/ recipient and they have shown the receipt in the their return of income. If that be so no demand on account of short deduction can be claimed from the assessee. All these facts require verification at the end of AO. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO and must produce all the relevant evidences before the AO. The AO is further directed to verify the same and decide the matter afresh keeping in mind the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court cited supra and CBDT Circular F. No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dtd. 29.01.1997. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10 regarding short deduction of TDS and interest thereon under sections 194A and 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order holding them liable for short deduction of TDS and interest for Q1, Q3, and Q4 of the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage case and a CBDT Circular, arguing that the deductee had paid the due taxes.

2. Facts of the Case:
The assessee, a nationalized bank, mistakenly deducted TDS at a lower rate on deposits, leading to a demand for short deduction and interest by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide complete details regarding the interest income and tax paid by the payees.

3. Appeal Before Tribunal:
The assessee's appeal was brought before the Tribunal, but no representation was made from the assessee's side during the hearing. The Tribunal noted that although documents were submitted to the CIT(A) showing taxes paid by the deductees, the CIT(A) did not accept them due to incomplete payee details.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
Considering the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage case, the Tribunal held that if the deductee had paid the taxes, the tax could not be recovered from the assessee. The case was remanded back to the AO for verification of whether the short deduction had been paid by the payees and shown in their income tax returns.

5. Direction to AO:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the short deduction had been paid by the payees and instructed the assessee to cooperate by providing relevant evidence. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh, considering the Supreme Court's decision and the CBDT Circular.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all grounds of appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the demand for short deduction of TDS. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the importance of verifying whether the deductees had paid the due taxes to determine the assessee's liability accurately.