2025 (8) TMI 685 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed against TDS short deduction demand under Section 200A for non-linked PAN-Aadhaar, penalty paid later

Duraiswamy Balu Versus ITO, Non Corp. Ward-22 (1), Channai, Tamil Nadu

Duraiswamy Balu Versus ITO, Non Corp. Ward-22 (1), Channai, Tamil Nadu - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDWhether the order passed under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 quantifying short deduction of TDS and interest thereon is valid and sustainable in law.Whether the assessing authority and appellate authority erred in confirming the demand for short deduction of TDS without assigning proper reasons and without providing opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.Whether the presumption of short deduction of TDS based on inactive PAN status of the payee is justified when the deductor had deducted tax at source as per applicable provisions and was unaware of PAN inactivity.Whether the provisions of sections 206AA/206AB of the Income Tax Act and Rule 114AAA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 are applicable in the facts of the case, particularly in light of CBDT Circulars relaxing strict application of higher TDS rates for inactive PANs.Whether the demand raised under section 200A is barred by limitation and whether the order passed without adherence to faceless assessment regime is valid.Whether the intention behind mandatory PAN-Aadhar linking and related CBDT Circulars should be interpreted to avoid undue hardship on deductors who have deducted TDS in good faith.Whether the demand for additional TDS results in unjust enrichment of the revenue when the payee has already filed return of income and claimed credit for TDS deducted by the assessee.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity and Sustainability of Order under Section 200A Quantifying Short Deduction of TDS and InterestLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 200A of the Income Tax Act empowers the assessing officer to pass an order quantifying the amount of tax deductible at source (TDS) in cases of default. The order must be reasoned and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The deductor is liable for short deduction if TDS is not deducted at prescribed rates or not deducted at all.Court Reasoning and Findings: The appellate tribunal noted that the order under section 200A was passed confirming short deduction of Rs. 22,80,000 and interest of Rs. 22,800 without providing detailed reasons or opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority held that the demand was based on the system-generated intimation from CPC-TDS reflecting higher TDS rate applied due to non-filing of TDS returns or non-availability of PAN details.Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal observed that the assessee had deducted TDS at 1% on payments to resident co-owners and at 22.88% on payment to non-resident co-owner, and had filed Form 26QB and Form 27Q respectively. However, the CPC-TDS system treated the PAN of one payee as inactive and applied 20% TDS rate, leading to demand for short deduction.Competing Arguments: The revenue relied on the system-generated intimation and non-filing of complete TDS returns as justification for demand. The assessee argued that TDS was deducted correctly and the demand was unjustified and arbitrary.Conclusions: The tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the order lacked proper reasons and that the PAN was not inactive at the time of deduction. The demand under section 200A was thus held to be unsustainable without considering the facts and compliance by the assessee.Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Faceless Assessment RegimeLegal Framework: Principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given adequate opportunity to present evidence and be heard before passing an adverse order. The faceless assessment regime mandates compliance with prescribed procedures and timelines.Court Reasoning: The assessee contended that no proper opportunity was given before passing the order under section 200A and that the order was passed without jurisdiction and beyond time limits. The appellate authority did not specifically address these contentions.Findings: The tribunal noted the absence of detailed reasons and opportunity in the impugned order and emphasized that such procedural lapses vitiate the order. The failure to adhere to faceless assessment procedures further rendered the order invalid.Conclusion: The order under section 200A was held to be bad in law for non-compliance with natural justice and procedural requirements.Issue 3: Applicability and Interpretation of Sections 206AA/206AB and Rule 114AAA Regarding PAN-Aadhar LinkingLegal Framework: Sections 206AA and 206AB provide for deduction of tax at higher rates where PAN is not furnished or is inactive. Rule 114AAA prescribes consequences for failure to link PAN with Aadhar. CBDT Circulars provide clarifications and timelines for compliance.Court Reasoning: The tribunal examined the CBDT Circulars 3/2023, 6/2024, and 9/2025 which extended timelines and provided relief from consequences of short deduction where PAN-Aadhar linking was completed within specified grace periods.Key Evidence: The seller's PAN was initially inactive due to non-linking with Aadhar but was linked on 31.07.2024 after paying a penalty. The transaction took place before 31.03.2024, and the assessee deducted TDS at 1% as per section 194IA.Application of Law to Facts: The tribunal held that strict application of the deadline (31.05.2024) in Circular 6/2024 would cause undue hardship, especially since the payee had filed return of income including capital gains and claimed credit for TDS deducted. The later Circular 9/2025 further relaxed timelines, indicating legislative intent to avoid penalizing deductors unduly.Competing Arguments: Revenue urged strict application of higher TDS rates due to inactive PAN. Assessee argued for a harmonious interpretation of circulars emphasizing relief and avoidance of hardship.Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the provisions of sections 206AA/206AB and Rule 114AAA should be applied considering the spirit of the circulars and legislative intent, thereby negating the demand based on inactive PAN in this case.Issue 4: Whether Demand Results in Unjust Enrichment of RevenueLegal Framework: Tax demands should not lead to unjust enrichment of the revenue. Where the payee has already declared income and claimed TDS credit, additional demand on the deductor may cause double taxation.Court Reasoning: The tribunal noted that the payee had filed return of income including capital gains from the property sale and claimed credit for TDS deducted by the assessee. Imposing additional TDS demand on the assessee would result in the payee being unable to claim credit for the excess amount, leading to double taxation and unjust enrichment of the revenue.Conclusion: The demand was held to be unjustified as it would cause circular and unfair tax consequences.Issue 5: Whether the Assessing Officer's Reliance on System-Generated Intimation Without Documentary Proof is JustifiedLegal Framework: System-generated notices and demands require verification and substantiation by the assessing officer. The deductor is entitled to produce documentary evidence to rebut such demands.Court Reasoning: The appellate authority observed the absence of documentary proof of Form 27Q filing and incomplete Form 26QB filing for some payments. However, the tribunal found that the assessee had produced challans and evidence of TDS deduction at appropriate rates for resident and non-resident co-owners.Conclusion: The tribunal held that mere system-generated intimation without considering documentary evidence and factual compliance cannot sustain the demand.Issue 6: Applicability of Limitation and Jurisdictional Validity of Order under Section 200ALegal Framework: Section 200A orders must be passed within prescribed time limits. Faceless assessment procedures require adherence to timelines and jurisdictional norms.Court Reasoning: The assessee contended that the order was passed beyond time and without jurisdiction. The tribunal did not find explicit discussion on limitation but emphasized procedural lapses and absence of proper reasons.Conclusion: The order was held to be invalid on procedural grounds, and the question of limitation was implicitly considered in the context of invalidity.Issue 7: Interpretation of Legislative Intent and CBDT Circulars to Avoid Undue Hardship on DeductorsLegal Framework: CBDT Circulars are issued to clarify and provide relief in implementation of tax laws, reflecting legislative intent to balance compliance and hardship.Court Reasoning: The tribunal analyzed the series of CBDT Circulars extending deadlines for PAN-Aadhar linking and providing relief from consequences of higher TDS deduction. It emphasized that the legislative intent is to ensure compliance without imposing undue hardship on deductors who acted in good faith.Conclusion: The tribunal held that the demand for short deduction based on inactive PAN should be considered in light of these circulars and the facts of the case, leading to deletion of the demand.