TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashed. (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining the demand of Rs. 1,75,677/- on account of short deduction of TDS and interest thereon raised by the AO u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). The demand so raised by the ITO (TDS) and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the additions may kindly be deleted in full. 2. Firstly, during the course of hearing, ground No.1 was not pressed hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 2.1 In respect of ground No.2, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its TDS return for the 4th Quarter of F.Y. 2010-11 on 24.07.2011 and while filing the said TDS return, PAN of some of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the short deduction of tax amounting to Rs. 36/- is also pointed out by the system and this fact was also not disputed by the appellant. Accordingly raising of such demand to the extent of Rs. 60,022/- and Rs. 36/- and consequential interest u/s 201(1A) of IT Act is found to be correct. Accordingly, action of the AO to such an extent is confirmed. Regarding the remaining demand, as per appellant as per justification report from the portal of CPC the same is reported to be Rs. 1,75,677/- which includes demand of Rs. 60,022/- and Rs. 36/- not disputed by the appellant as discussed in the above para. The dispute is in respect of demand raised on account of short deduction of tax in the case of M/s Yadav Construction Co. And Ramdhan Jat. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s lying with the department because due to wrong pan the recipient also cannot claim that TDS. Hence also no loss to revenue. Alternatively and without prejudice to our other submission, even assuming some default was there, the same at the best was a merely technical and venial breach of law and the conduct of the assessee has not been shown to be contumacious. No deliberate defiance of law is established. In conclusion, firstly there was no short deduction in deducting the TDS and secondly at the worst if there was any short deduction due to wrong PAN the same was beyond, controlled to the assessee or technical or venial breach of law for which no penalty can be imposed kindly refer Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orrisa (supra). Saraswati E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as the assessee had paid amount in every month. The assessee has paid after deducting the TDS and this TDS has been deposited by the assessee very well in timely . Here the assessee had done all the work well in timely which were in its hand (i.e. deduction and deposit of tax). In which there was no default of the assessee if any default was of the recipients, which was beyond the control of the assessee for which he should not be suffered or penalized. Although the above decision on penalty but the ratio of the same is also applicable in the present case. Therefore keeping in view the totality of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position, the AO may kindly be directed to delete the demand so raised. 2.4 The Ld DR is heard wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the relevant provision of this Act, (ii) at the rate or rates in force, or (iii) at the rate of twenty percent. Sub-section (6) of section 206AA further provides that "where permanent account number provided to the deductor is invalid or does not belong to the deductee, it shall be deemed that the deductee has not furnished his Permanent Account Number to the deductor and the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply accordingly." 2.7 On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that primary onus is on the person entitled to receive income on which tax is deductible at source to furnish his PAN and in case such PAN is invalid or does not belong to the said person by virtue of deeming fiction, it has been stated that he has ....