TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....445 & 444/CIT(A)/ VJA/12-13 dated 29.04.2013 u/s 201/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the cross objections are filed by the assessee. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No : 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The CIT(A) erred in concluding that TOS need not be deducted from the payments made to contractors under various schemes. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the Order of the Assessing Officer since it was passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering the submissions, concluded that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on various contract payments. He is therefore treated as deemed to be in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and demanded short deduction of TDS u/s 201(1) for Rs. 49,51,782/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 50,42,916/- for the A.Y. 2012-13. The AO also calculated penal interest u/s 201(1A) and raised total demand of Rs. 66,11,236/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 62,06,477/- for the A.Y.2012-13. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), Vijayawada. During the course of appeal hearing, the assessee submitted written submissions and relied on various case laws as mentioned in his submissions. The Ld.CIT(A) after going through the written submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in that case as per the Apex Court's decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), again the same tax need not be recovered again. It is also submitted by the AR that the recipients, wherever necessary obtained PAN numbers and filed revised TDS returns is a relevant point to be noted. Thus, taking totality of facts and circumstances into account and after reappraisal of the position in view of the submissions made and material filed, I am of the considered opinion that there is no liability under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for both the assessment years under consideration and accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the same. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d u/s 194C. We refer to section 139 (5B) of the Act which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience. (5B) Where any sum or income or amount has been paid after deducting tax under Chapter XVIIB, every person deducting tax under that Chapter shall quote the permanent account number of the person to whom such sum or income or amount has been paid by him- (i) in the statement furnished in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2C) of section 192; (ii) in all certificates furnished in accordance with the provisions of section 203; (iii) in all returns prepared and delivered or caused to be delivered in accordance with the provisions of section 206 to any income-tax authority; (iv) in all statements prepared and delivered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lya Bai vs. Union of India held that in view of the specific provision section 139A of the Act, section 206A of the Act is made inapplicable to persons whose income is less than the taxable limits as per the Finance Act, 1991. We also note that in terms of section 139A(5A) of the Act, every person receiving any sum or income or amount from which tax has been deducted under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB, shall intimate his permanent account number to the person responsible for deducting such tax under that Chapter. However the second Proviso exempts certain categories of persons from the applicability of section 139(5A) & 139(5B). We also find from the records that the assessee has segregated the contractual payments more than Rs. 5,00,000....