9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PANs, but that of mismatch of PANs. That being so, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. It is basic and trite that during the progress of proceedings from the taxing Authority to the Appellate Authority, in order to make the right or remedy claimed by the assessee just and meaningful, the Appellate Authority itself, subject to all just exceptions, must examine and evaluate events and developments, if any occurring subsequent to the institution of the proceedings, and mould the relief accordingly. In the present case, clearly, this has not been done. Though the ld. CIT(A) has noted the assessee having, post the passing of the AO’s order, furnished the quarterly statements and paid requisite taxes, in spite thereof, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and legal position in this regard. It is seen that it is not a case where assessee has not deducted TDS. Assessee has deducted TDS by treating the contractors as having PAN, and hence at a rate of 2.25%, whereas AO held that as PAN for these contractors were not available, assessee should have deducted TDS at the rate of 20%. Assessee has also not filed its quarterly statements of 24Q and 26Q, hence it has rendered itself liable to be treated as assessee in default under section 201 (1). Although assessee later furnished the quarterly statements and requisite taxes were also paid, but that would not absolve the assessee from being treated as assessee in default. I agree with the stand of the AO that the assessee has to be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also had not filed its quarterly statements in 24Q and 26Q, it had rendered itself liable to be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with the stand of the AO. 7. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The order under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 28.03.2014, treating the contractors as having no PANs and working out short TDS at ₹ 3,27,460/-. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions (APB 6-11), stating that the incorrect PANs had been rectified, where after, the total demand of ₹ 4,17,508/- stood revised to that of ₹ 2,460/-. Supporting evidence in the shape of copies of quarterly statements for all the four q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order u/s 201(1) of the Act is an order assessing an assessee as an assessee in default. In first appeal, the assessee challenges such treatment. It is basic and trite that during the progress of proceedings from the taxing Authority to the Appellate Authority, in order to make the right or remedy claimed by the assessee just and meaningful, the Appellate Authority itself, subject to all just exceptions, must examine and evaluate events and developments, if any occurring subsequent to the institution of the proceedings, and mould the relief accordingly. In the present case, clearly, this has not been done. Though the ld. CIT(A) has noted the assessee having, post the passing of the AO s order, furnished the quarterly statements and paid re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
