TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was found & deemed to be an Assessee in Default for Short deduction of Tax of Rs. 2,98,992/- u/s 201(1) of the Act-for AY 2015-16 & as per provision of section 201(1A), the assessee was held liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one percent per month on the amount of Default for AY 2015-16 which was calculated at Rs. 2,60,123/-. [CEPT University Ahmedabad] It was also found out in the order that for AY 2015-16, the assessee deductor has made short deduction on payment made to 1. Spatial Decisions, 2. Prem Choudhary, 3. K.N. Gutgutia & Co. at Rs. 81431/- u/s 201(1) of the Act. The interest was worked out at Rs. 71,531/- u/s 201(1A) on said amount. For non-deduction of TDS on interest payment to HUDCO for the period prior to 20.03.20219 [194A] short deduction was worked out at Rs. 3,42,61,000/- u/s 201(1A) and interest thereon was worked out at Rs. 3,18,61,000/- u/s 201(1A). For the payment made to " CEPT University" the TDS was found to be deducted at 4% [194J] instead of 10%. The TDS Certificate downloaded from TRACES (Certificate No. III 5DE160H) it was also found that it is valid from 24.11.2014 to 31.03.2015. However, on 26Q of 3rd Quarter the assessee deductor had paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
[email protected] No Compliance 6.3 The appellant has not filed any written submission and valid evidence for more than three years during the appellate proceedings, inspite of issuing three hearing notices by duly adhering to the principle of natural justice. 6.7 On perusal of the above order, and on merits of the case also, it is observed that the DCIT, TDS, Bhopal has rightly Assessed the total liability as Rs. 6,68,33,877/-, in the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 28.12.2021, as the appellant has not substantiated the claim. 6.8 In this regard, it is pertinent to highlight that the Burden of Proof lies on the assessee. But in this case, the appellant has not made valid submissions with valid evidences, during the appellate proceedings also to substantiate the claim made in Form 35. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 28.12.2021 is upheld, as the appellant has not substantiated the claim. 6.9 Moreover, considering the non-compliance as detailed above by the appellant, it seems that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal. The appellant has not made any submissions during the appellate proceedings. The appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven sufficient opportunity to file reply and even otherwise appellant have not received any notice of hearing. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in levying the TDS provisions of interest paid to HUDCO and confirmed the finding of AO who determined the demand of Rs. 6,61,21,800 without appreciating that the HUDCO is a 100 percent government owned company and was exempted from the TDS provisions in Notification No. S.O. 3489 dated 22.10.1970. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in levying the TDS provisions of interest paid to HUDCO and confirmed the finding of AO who determined the demand of Rs. 6,61,21,800 without appreciating that the HUDCO has already paid taxes on the interest earned by them and levying of TDS provision again on deductor would imply double taxation of same income. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in determining short deduction of TDS of Rs. 2,98,992 alongwith interest of Rs. 2,60,123 under section 194J on payment made to CEPT University without appreciating that the total bill raised by CEPT was Rs. 37,44,960 which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce u/r 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. Our attention is invited to PB page 12 which is Certificate of accountant under first Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act. It was also submitted basis page 9 of PB that HUDCO has joint venture with 4 corporate too. Other contention like payment made to the CEPT University was discussed & it was submitted that there is no short payment. Copy of e-mail correspondences PB page 16 to 19 were relied upon. The extract of email dt. 02.04.2025 was read out by the Ld. AR to demonstrate that "As per the CEPT University's books of accounts an invoice of Rs. 37.44 lacs (comprising Rs. 33.33 lacs + service tax) was raised on UADD. A payment of Rs. 16.85 lacs was subsequently received with tax deducted amounting to Rs. 1,87,248 lacs (TDS @10%). This tax deduction is duly reflected in the 26AS statement." Further content of said e-mail were too read out. The payments were made to 3 other parties too. The Ld. AR finally contended that entire issue of payments & deductions of TDS is not clear & the necessary records are old. The attempt & efforts of serious nature would now be made by the assessee to retrieve the old records & connected pape....