TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are raised in these appeals except for variance of figures, hence ground pertaining to asst. Year 2011-12 is reproduced. 1. General Ground 1.1. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell - TDS, Ghaziabad ('AO') has erred in passing the intimation under section 154 read with section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in the manner passed by him and the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-3 ('CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the said order. The said order being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 2. Grounds relating to demand raised under 154 read with section 200A 2.1. The learned AO has erred in determining Rs. 1,24,130 as the amount payable on account of short d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reciating that even though demand was raised in intimation passed under section 200A, the same demand continued in the Intimation passed under 154 and hence the appellant had a legal right in filing an appeal against the said intimation. 2.8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that there is no restriction or prohibition in challenging the Intimation passed under section 154 without challenging the intimation passed under section 200A. 2.9. In any case and without prejudice, determination of short deduction of TDS without finding whether payee also has failed to pay the tax directly amounts to double recovery of tax, which is unsustainable and not permissible as per Explanation to section 191. 2.10. Assuming without admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The eTDS statement/return for quarters were filed as per section 200(3) of IT Act for asst. Year 2011-12 & 2012-13. Subsequently correction statements were filed to rectify the defaults existing in the statements. Thereafter, statements filed by assessee were processed by TRACES and intimation u/s 154 r.w.s 200A of IT Act was received by assessee for asst. Year 2011-12 & 2012-13. 5. In the intimation for asst. Year 2011-12, the short tax deduction at source with respect to Form 24Q for 4th quarter of the Financial Year 2010-11 has been quantified at Rs. 67,184/-. Interest on such short deduction of tax at source has been quantified at Rs. 56,950/-. Thus, the net sum payable has been determined at Rs. 1,24,130/- [i.e 67,184 + 56,950]. Simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench [ITA No.115 to 117 (Vysag)/2015 dated 22-1-2016 for proportion that rate of tax on gross payment cannot be automatically applied in the case of deduction of TDS u/s 192 of the IT Act. Further it was contended that sec. 206AA is inapplicable to persons whose income is below taxable limit. 7. The CIT(A) however rejected the appeal of assessee without going into the merits. The CIT(A) was of view that assessee ought to have filed appeals against intimation u/s 200A of IT Act instead of intimation u/s 154 r.w.s 200A of the IT Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) read as follows:- 4.2 The submissions of the appellant have duly been considered. A perusal of the records as well as submissions of the appellant clearly shows that demand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the correction statement. Further it is also not the case of the appellant that the rectification order of denying the correction of a mistake apparent from record was passed by the AU in response to a rectification application filed by it wherein it had contested that raising such demand was a mistake apparent from record. So that aspect is also not required to be looked into. Since the demand of Rs. 1,24,130/- has not been raised vide order under Section 154 of the Act, so the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed." 8. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A) for asst. Year 2011-12 & 2-12-13, the assessee has filed these appeals before the ITAT. The ld AR relied on the grounds raised and prayed that Tribunal may remand the issue ....