2017 (2) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 25.12.2013 of DCIT(TDS),CPC, Ghaziabad [hereinafter referred to as the AO]. 2. Ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee reads as under :- "That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant was liable to deduct TDS on interest payment TO Shri Prafulla Kumar Jain (PAN: ABMPJ 1974K) @ 20% as per section 206AA (for non availability of PAN OF Prafulla Kumar), instead of normal TDS rate on interest at 10%. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194A read with section 206AA of the Act at Rs. 7,755/- and also erred in confirming interest of Rs. 1,025/- levied u/s 201(1A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the credit has also been given to this payee but the demand from the assessee for short deduction of TDS remained to be there due to non-updation. It was contended that the finding given in para 4.1 at page 6-7 is wrong application of law. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed short deduction for wrong furnishing of PAN in TDS return (that too due to typographical mistake on the part of the bank due to volume of entries to be made) whereas section 206AA is applicable for not having PAN. It was also submitted that Prafull Kumar Jain is old assessee and is filing regular income tax returns and have filed the return of the concerned assessment year i.e. 2013-14. Thus, it is not a case that PAN was not available at the time of deduction of TDS a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has not furnished correct PAN of Shri Prafull Kumar Jain, PAN mentioned in the original TDS return in respect of the above deductee was not valid/correct. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting the TDS rate of 20% as against 10%. However, it is seen that the assessee has filed the revised TDS return by quoting the correct PAN which was accepted by the department. We find that it is not a case that PAN of payees available with the assessee was not correct but this is a case where due to typographical error or much volume of entries in TDS return, wrong PAN of only one payee was mentioned in the original TDS return though the payee appears to have supplied correct PAN to the assessee. Similarly, Shri Prafull Kumar Jain i....