Case Law Details
G.B. Builders Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
We note that in the present facts, the assessee had initially deposited the entire TDS in respect of purchase of immovable property on 24-11-2014 u/s 194-IA of the Act i.e. within the due date from purchase of immovable property. Due to certain technical error committed (incorrect interchanging of PAN numbers of buyer and seller in online filing of Statement 26QB), the seller could not get credit of TDS and later, on the advise of Revenue authorities again the buyer (the assessee) paid the TDS again amount along-with interest for late deposit. The CPC, Ghaziabad processed revised form 26QB filed on 16-12-2015 u/s. 200(A)(1) and on 07-02-2016 raised a demand of late fee of Rs. 74,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act.
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) uphold levy of late filing fee of Rs. 74,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act for late filing of TDS statement.
The issue for consideration is when the assessee had initially deposited TDS u/s 194-IA of the Act and accordingly filed TDS statement within due date from time when the immovable property was transferred, but committed a technical default while filing the TDS Statement resulting into non-grant of TDS credit, compelling the assessee to again deposit TDS along-with interest, can the assessee be penalized for late filing of revised TDS Statement u/s 234E of the Act.
ITAT held that The Ld. CIT(A) did not take into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, where the assessee had initially deposited TDS u/s 194-IA of the Act on purchase of immovable within due date on 24-11-2014. Due to a technical error, since the seller could not get credit of TDS deposited in the initial deposit, on the advise of Revenue Authorities, the assessee had again deposited TDS along-with late filing interest Rs. 46,977/- payable for 14 months on 16-12-2015. Ld. CIT(A) also did not appreciate that had the assessee at the time of initial deposit of TDS mentioned the correct PAN numbers i.e. had the assessee not committed the aforesaid technical error, there would have been no question of levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not take cognizance of the fact that in the facts of the case, there was no loss caused to the Revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
