9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 858 - AT - Income TaxNon deposit of tds - default of short deduction of tax as per tax audit report - demand on the assessee u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Held that - The assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 982940/- in the third quarter of financial year 2010-11 and there is no admission of the TDS liability at the time of survey, therefore, difference of two figures the assessee cannot be asked to pay. The ld Assessing Officer in his assessment order has neither given the detail of how the liability of ₹ 12.25 lakhs has arisen and in whose account the tax is required to be deducted. It cannot be the case that any lump-sum amount can be deposited as TDS. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A), therefore the ground No.1 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Direction of CIT(A) to AO to verify the detail by accessing the data from NSDL site and verify if there is any short deduction or nonpayment of tax and then charge interest if any - Held that - Ld DR could not explain to us how revenue is aggrieved by the direction of ld CIT(A). according to us the ld CIT(A) has protected the interest of revenue. Therefore, we dismiss ground No. 6 of the appeal of the revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 23.08.2012 of the ld CIT(A)-XXX for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12. - Grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 raised by the revenue. - Deletion of demand, TDS liability, interest amounts, and expenses by the ld CIT(A). - Verification of details by accessing data from NSDL site. - Dismissal of appeals by the revenue. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The revenue raised various grounds of appeal for both years, challenging the deletion of demands and liabilities by the ld CIT(A). 2. For Assessment Year 2010-11, the revenue contested the deletion of demand and TDS liability, including interest amounts, on various grounds. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the revenue's appeal, citing that the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient details to support the liabilities claimed. The ld CIT(A) found no infirmity in the order and dismissed the grounds of appeal. 3. Regarding the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, similar issues were raised by the revenue challenging the deletion of demands and liabilities by the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) again ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the deductor had deposited the TDS as per law, and any shortfall could be rectified after verification by the ITO (TDS). The revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the available information. 4. The ld CIT(A) deleted various tax liabilities, interest amounts, and expenses, emphasizing the lack of proper verification by the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) found that the deductor had complied with TDS requirements and had valid reasons for not deducting tax in certain instances. 5. The ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify details by accessing data from the NSDL site to ensure accurate assessment of tax liabilities. The ld CIT(A) aimed to protect the interests of revenue by ensuring proper verification of tax-related information. 6. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the revenue for both years were dismissed by the tribunal, upholding the orders of the ld CIT(A) in favor of the assessee. The tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contentions and confirmed the deletion of demands and liabilities by the ld CIT(A). This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues raised in the appeals, the decisions made by the ld CIT(A), and the final outcome of the tribunal's dismissal of the revenue's appeals for both Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
|
