9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 201(1A) of the Act on 24.03.2014 where the Assessee was found to be an assessee in default and also charged interest thereon comprising all the above sum. The appeal before the ld CIT(A) was filed on 23.04.2013, subsequently, on 18.09.2015 the ld AO has rectified the mistake apparent in the order and thereafter reduced the demand. Only issue before him was that the claim of the Assessee that the Assessee obtained Form No. 15G and 15H same were filed before the revenue but the AO did not believe this during the course of passing of the order u/s 201(1A). The ld AO rejected the claim of the Assessee for the reason that though photocopies of all the form produced during the course of inspection as mentioned by ld AO at para No. 11 were avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter passing of the order u/s 154 of the Act and the Assessee should have filed a fresh appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. We are of the view that approach of the ld CIT(A) is pedantic not correct because it will put additional burden on the Assessee to cross the threshold of the provision of section 154 of the Act of being mistake apparent from the record . By passing an order u/s 154 of the act, in fact ld AO has made the task of ld CIT (A) much simpler. In fact, the mistake is committed by the LD AO who should have charged the right demand of tax from the Assessee. Therefore, it is mistake of the LD AO for which the Assessee cannot be penalized. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the issue is with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king TDS on interest payment of ₹ 14,88,56,291/- and therefore, it was also liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A). Such order was passed on 24.03.2014. The total amount of tax demand was raised of ₹ 3,74,10,430/- . Against this Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT (A)-I, Gurgaon. 4. Subsequently, the ld AO passed an order u/s 154 of the Act on 18/09/2019 wherein, demand of only ₹ 21,28,983/- was found to be correctly raised. The above demand was pertaining to tax liability u/s 201(1) of ₹ 17,01,770/- and interest u/s 201(1A) of ₹ 4,27,213/-. The order u/s 154 was passed for the reason that the Assessee claimed that it has paid interest only of ₹ 38,63,89,663/- for FY. 2011-12 which was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non submission of Form No. 15G and 15H accepted by the appellant bank and therefore, the facts and circumstances of the appeal have completely changed. 6. Before the LD CIT (A) the Assessee contested that all the form in Form No. 15G and 15H received by the deductor were also submitted to the department and therefore, tax was not deductible thereon. The ld CIT (A) noted that the redrafting of ground of appeal after passing of the order u/s 154 of the Act by the ld AO is not acceptable because it amounts to substitution of appeal which was filed against the order dated 24.03.2014 demanding tax of ₹ 3,74,10,430/- that an appeal against the order of ld AO u/s 154 of the Act is not permissible. Further, he held that tax demand of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed his mistake and reduced demand substantially. The LD CIT (A) in fact instead of appreciating that the issue of dispute has reduced to a considerable extent before him took an unacceptable approach and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on non sustainable ground as stated in para no. 6 of his order. The only issue before him was that the claim of the Assessee that the Assessee obtained Form No. 15G and 15H same were filed before the revenue but the AO did not believe this during the course of passing of the order u/s 201(1A). The ld AO rejected the claim of the Assessee for the reason that though photocopies of all the form produced during the course of inspection as mentioned by ld AO at para No. 11 were available but claim was rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the reduced demand after passing of the order u/s 154 of the Act and the Assessee should have filed a fresh appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. We are of the view that approach of the ld CIT(A) is pedantic not correct because it will put additional burden on the Assessee to cross the threshold of the provision of section 154 of the Act of being mistake apparent from the record . By passing an order u/s 154 of the act, in fact ld AO has made the task of ld CIT (A) much simpler. In fact, the mistake is committed by the LD AO who should have charged the right demand of tax from the Assessee. Therefore, it is mistake of the LD AO for which the Assessee cannot be penalized. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
