TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zing the funds meant for modernisation section. On finalisation of the bills received from the contractors, the assessee-company determined the actual liability of TDS and claimed that there being excess deposit of TDS of Rs. 3.2 crores for the relevant eleven financial years taken together, a refund to that extent was due to it. The details prepared and furnished by the assessee in this regard revealed that there was excess deposit of TDS by the assessee for the financial years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 while there was short deposit of TDS for the financial years 1989-90, 1992-93, 1997 98 and 1998-99. Keeping in view these details, the Assessing Officer originally passed the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) for only five financial years, i.e. 1988-89, 1989-90, 1992-93, 1997-98 and 1998-99, wherein there was a short-fall in payment of TDS and after charging interest under section 201(1A) for such short-fall, a total demand of Rs. 14.10 crores was raised by him against the assessee. On appeal by the assessee, the said order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) was set aside by the ld. CIT(Appeals), Durgapur vide an order dated 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....96,39,555/-, he worked out the amount payable by the assessee for financial years 1992-93, 1997-98 and 1998-99 at Rs. 1,16,03,337/-, Rs. 48,60,132/- and Rs. 2,60,82,232/- respectively. He also charged interest under section 220(2) of the Act for financial years 1992-93, 1997-98 and 1998-99 at Rs. 62,65,801/-, Rs. 26,44,471/- and Rs. 1,40,84,405/- respectively and raised a total demand of Rs. 6,55,20,378/- against the assessee vide an order dated 16.01.2017 passed under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since the submissions made on behalf of the assessee disputing the levy of interest under section 201(1A) and 220(2) were not found acceptable by him, the ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal on the following common grounds:- "(1) That, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) wrongly assumed the facts narrated by the A.O. in his appeal effect ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terms of sec.201(3) of the Act, bar to limitation pertains to sec.201(1) and not applicable to sec.201(1A) of the Act in spite of the fact that if TDS demand u/s.201(1) is time barred in view of sec.201(3), then the issue of consequential interest u/s.201(1A) is automatically time barred. 8. That, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) misinterpreted the direction of earlier C.I.T.(A)'s order dated 12.03.2014 in holding that the A.O. has appropriately passed appeal effect order on de novo basis in spite of the fact that Ld. C.IT.(A) on the basis of details submitted before him held the claim of refund of excess deposit of TDS over actual liability justified and allowed all the appeals with a direction to verify those details and hence the impugned order confirming erroneous demand being bad in law is liable to be quashed". 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in the present case is a Government of India Undertaking, which undertook modernisation work involving a total cost of about Rs. 5,000 crores. He submitted that during the period of modernisation from financial years 1988-89 to 1998-99, various types of jobs were carried out by several contractors and sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issible as per the communication dated 10.09.2014 issued by the CPC (TDS) and since there would be no short-fall in the payment of TDS by the assessee after such adjustment at any stage during the relevant period, the question of charging of interest under section 201(1A) would not arise and the demand raised against the assessee would require to be quashed. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that even the TDS certificates were issued by the assessee on the basis of bills raised by the concerned contractors and sub-contractors and not on the basis of adhoc payment of TDS made on estimated basis. He contended that since the concerned parties have availed the credit for TDS on the basis of TDS certificates issued by the assessee, there is no case of claim any extra credit for TDS by the concerned parties than the deposits made by the assessee. He contended that this vital position was appreciated by the ld. CIT(Appeals) while passing the appellate order in the first round and accordingly specific findings in favour of the assessee were recorded by him which the Assessing Officer failed to understand and follow. 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in respect of each year separately without adjusting the excess deposit of TDS made by the assessee in the earlier years. In our opinion, this stand taken by the revenue authorities is contrary to the communication issued by the CPC(TDS) on 10.09.2014, which has clarified with an example that in case tax has been deposited more than the required tax deducted at source for a particular assessment year, the excess amount of tax can be claimed in the following quarters of the relevant year and the balance amount, if any, can be carried forward to the next year for claim in the TDS statement. 10. It is also observed that section 245 of the Act duly authorises the concerned Income Tax Authority to set off the amount of refund or any part of that amount due to any person under any of the provisions of the Act against the sum, if any, remaining payable by the Act by the person to whom the refund is due. It is thus clear that the refund due to any person under the provisions of the Act for one year can be adjusted against the tax liability for the other year and the concerned authorities are duly authorized to make such adjustment. In the case of Motion -vs.- CIT [214 Taxman 335 (Del....