9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is equally important is that the assessee should verify at the time of making payments or at the time of credit in his books of accounts where Shri Lala Ram has submitted his correct PAN number. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to discharge its obligation to verify the correct PAN and it is only at the time of processing of the TDS return that the department has noticed the submission of incorrect PAN number and thereafter raised the impunged demand. What is important is that the exercise to file TDS returns should be such that it contains correct and accurate data and it is only then that the processing of such data has can happen properly and credit can be given to the income recipient. Given the non-obstante nature of provisions as contained in section 206AA(1) of the Act which overrides section 194C of the Act, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the AO in raising demand of the differential tax that the assessee should have deducted by virtue of submission of incorrect PAN by Shri Lala Ram. At the same time, the assessee shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from Shri Lala Ram. With the above observations the ground taken by the assessee is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile filing the TDS return the appellant has mentioned PAN no. of some of the deductees wrong. However, subsequently, such mistake was rectified by the appellant by way of correction statement and by way of furnishing correct PAN s of such deductees. The AO has admitted all such facts to be correct. However, PAN in respect of shri Lala Ram is still found to be incorrect against which the demand on account of short deduction is arrived at ₹ 60,022/-. This fact was also admitted by the AR of the appellant during the appellate proceedings. similarly the short deduction of tax amounting to ₹ 36/- is also pointed out by the system and this fact was also not disputed by the appellant. Accordingly raising of such demand to the extent of ₹ 60,022/- and ₹ 36/- and consequential interest u/s 201(1A) of IT Act is found to be correct. Accordingly, action of the AO to such an extent is confirmed. Regarding the remaining demand, as per appellant as per justification report from the portal of CPC the same is reported to be ₹ 1,75,677/- which includes demand of ₹ 60,022/- and ₹ 36/- not disputed by the appellant as discussed in the above para. The disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO 292 ITR 411 (Kar.) also refer Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank vs. Add. CIT 140 TTJ 622 (Luck). There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant has deposited amount of the tax deducted at source under the provisions of the Act with the government within stipulated time. Further, the tax deducted at source for the relevant period was deposited by the appellant alongwith chargeable interest before the issue of show cause notice for the penalty under reference. The default for which demand has been raised by the AO relates to mentioning wrong PAN. It is seen that the AO has raised the demand in a routine manner without bringing the facts on record to establish that the appellant committed the default without a reasonable cause. If we see in depth about the intention of legislature of bringing the provisions of filing of TDS return, it is clear that the requirement of the TDS return filing is to ensure that whether the assessee has deducted correct tax or not or after deducting the same whether paid to the account of central govt. or not and collection of tax from recipients of income through the deductor. If all the thing has been done and the purpose of the revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as deductor) failing which tax shall be deducted at the higher of the following rates, namely- (i) at the rate specified in the relevant provision of this Act, (ii) at the rate or rates in force, or (iii) at the rate of twenty percent. Sub-section (6) of section 206AA further provides that where permanent account number provided to the deductor is invalid or does not belong to the deductee, it shall be deemed that the deductee has not furnished his Permanent Account Number to the deductor and the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply accordingly. 2.7 On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that primary onus is on the person entitled to receive income on which tax is deductible at source to furnish his PAN and in case such PAN is invalid or does not belong to the said person by virtue of deeming fiction, it has been stated that he has not furnished his PAN to the deductor. In such a scenario, the onus shifts on the person responsible for deducting the tax that he shall deduct the tax at the rate specified in the relevant provisions of the Act or at the rate of 20% whichever is higher. In the instant case the PAN num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
