TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his delay in remittance of TDS by one day is due to the technical glitches / reasons beyond the control of the assessee and hence we hold that the assessee cannot be penalized by way of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the same. Chargeability of interest u/s 201(1A) is automatically calculated by the CPC based on the dates mentioned by the assessee in its quarterly results and the same is mandatory in nature - We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept to this argument of the ld.DR, in as much as, the delay had occurred not due to willful default on the part of the assessee, which is evident from the reason stated. Reason stated by the assessee had not been found to be false. Even though the chargeability of interest u/s 201(1A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility had been fastened on the assessee for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. There is no default committed by the assessee while remitting the TDS for the month of November 2016 on 08.12.2016. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to delete the interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the alleged default for the month of November 2016. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITAs No.6899 to 6901/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2023 - Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Shaantanu Devansh, Advocate Ms Tanya, Advocate For the Revenue : Ms Raja Rajeshwari R. Sr. DR ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: These appeals in ITAs No.6899 to 6901/Del/2019 for AY 2017-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in all these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of remittance of tax deducted at source with a delay of one day on two occasions, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequentially, whether the assessee would be liable for interest u/s 220(2) of the Act for the non-payment of the said demand ? 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee had filed respective quarterly returns in Form No. 24Q (for salaries) ; Form No. 26Q (for payments falling within the ambit of provisions of section 194C and 194J of the Act) and Form No. 27Q (for payments made to non-residents). In a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the same. The ld. DR before us vehemently argued that the chargeability of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act is automatically calculated by the CPC based on the dates mentioned by the assessee in its quarterly results and the same is mandatory in nature. She argued that there is no provision in the Act to waive the said interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. Moreover, the said interest is compensatory in nature and the Government was deprived of its legitimate dues in time and hence the said charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act would have to be upheld and consequentially interest u/s 220(2) of the Act also would be liable on the assessee for not paying the demand raised. We are unable to comprehend oursel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... online by the assessee, still when the transactions are routed through National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT) mode , still the bank takes few hours to process the said payment and accordingly the bank after processing mentions the date of execution as the immediately succeeding day. This fact is also evident from the fact that the time of execution of the said TDS remittance is mentioned in the tax paid challan as 04:45:20 hours, which is 4.45. AM and 20 seconds. This clinching evidence goes to prove that the assessee had made the remittance on the previous day itself i.e on 08.12.2016 and bank had taken its usual time for processing the said payment. It is also crucial to note that the bank had debited the account of the assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|