Yes, this is a known issue encountered by many deductors while filing Form 27Q for non-resident payments where the payee does not have a PAN. Let's break down your situation and provide a practical resolution strategy:
✅ Background Summary of the Problem
- You made payments to a non-resident vendor without a PAN.
- You provided email, TIN, contact, and address—as required under Rule 37BC of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
- While filing Form 27Q, NSDL's FVU utility rejected the file unless you selected Remark “C” (higher TDS due to no PAN).
- But Section 206AA does not apply at higher rate for non-residents, provided the details under Rule 37BC are furnished.
- By tagging "C", the system assumes TDS at 20%, leading to a default for short deduction if you deducted at DTAA or applicable rate.
- Now, TRACES portal does not permit rectifying or removing the "C" remark post-filing—default still persists.
📌 Legal Position: What the Law Says
Section 206AA requires higher TDS (20%) if PAN is not available.
However, Rule 37BC specifically relaxes Section 206AA for non-residents for certain payments (interest, royalty, fees for technical services, dividend, etc.) if they provide:
- Name, email ID
- Contact number
- Address in the country of residence
- Tax Residency Certificate (TRC)
- Tax Identification Number (TIN)
This means: 👉 Higher deduction of TDS is not applicable if Rule 37BC conditions are met.
🛠️ Why the Problem Happens Technically
- The NSDL FVU validation does not consider the Rule 37BC relaxation while checking for PAN.
- Hence, forcing “C” remark becomes the only way to generate the file.
- Once remark “C” is selected, TRACES treats it as liable for 20% TDS.
- TRACES default generation does not check Rule 37BC compliance, hence defaults for short deduction are raised.
✅ Resolution Steps
Unfortunately, the TRACES portal currently doesn’t allow removing or editing “C” tag once submitted, but you can follow this practical approach:
🔄 Step 1: File a Correction Return (Form 27Q Revised)
- Download Consolidated File (Conso File) from TRACES.
- Prepare a correction return using RPU.
- Remove Remark “C” (leave remarks blank or use correct DTAA details).
- Mention the TIN, country, TRC, etc., correctly in the payee details.
- Regenerate FVU file and upload correction return through NSDL portal.
This corrects the return only if the FVU allows validation without PAN using updated RPU version.
⚠️ If FVU still insists on “C”, then move to Step 2.
📝 Step 2: File a Justification Submission / Online Dispute on TRACES
Once the demand is raised for short deduction:
- Go to TRACES → Defaults → Request for Justification Report.
- Download the justification report and identify the defaults for the non-resident entry.
- Use “Default Justification Submission” option on TRACES to:
- Upload all supporting documents:
- Copy of TIN, TRC, email ID, contact, invoice/payment proof.
- Copy of Rule 37BC.
- Mention that Section 206AA does not apply due to compliance with Rule 37BC.
- Attach a covering letter explaining the FVU limitation.
This acts as an online reply to dispute the demand.
✉️ Step 3: If Portal Route Fails, Write to the Jurisdictional AO (TDS)
- Submit a manual letter to your TDS Assessing Officer enclosing:
- Copy of Form 27Q
- Proof of Rule 37BC compliance
- Copy of default raised
- Explanation that software did not allow return filing without selecting remark “C”
- Ask the AO to nullify the default demand manually or mark it as non-default in the back end.
✅ Proactive Tip for Future Returns
To avoid recurrence:
- Always maintain full documentation under Rule 37BC for non-residents.
- Check for the latest RPU/FVU version from NSDL website, which may improve validations.
- Use “blank remark” instead of “C” if FVU accepts it in future updates.
🧾 Final Note
You’re not alone—this issue is frequently faced by deductors dealing with foreign vendors. The only current workaround is to justify the short deduction through TRACES dispute mechanism or with AO support, as systemic validation overrides legal relaxation.
Disclaimer
This revert is not an legal opinion and only meant for a healthy discussion on the aforesaid matter for understanding the issue in a better manner and to explore the possible solution within the frame work of applicable legal provision. Consult with your Statutory Auditor/CA/Taxation Expert for digging out an appropriate answer to this issue.
***