Case Law Details
Canara Bank Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The fact of this case clearly shows that original order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 24.03.2014 where the Assessee was found to be an assessee in default and also charged interest thereon comprising all the above sum. The appeal before the ld CIT(A) was filed on 23.04.2013, subsequently, on 18.09.2015 the ld AO has rectified the mistake apparent in the order and thereafter reduced the demand from Rs. 3,74,10,430/- to only Rs. 21,28,983/-.
Thus, during the pendency of the appeal, the LD AO has rectified his mistake and reduced demand substantially. The LD CIT (A) in fact instead of appreciating that the issue of dispute has reduced to a considerable extent before him took an unacceptable approach and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on non sustainable ground as stated in para no. 6 of his order. The only issue before him was that the claim of the Assessee that the Assessee obtained Form No. 15G and 15H same were filed before the revenue but the AO did not believe this during the course of passing of the order u/s 201(1A).
The ld AO rejected the claim of the Assessee for the reason that though photocopies of all the form produced during the course of inspection as mentioned by ld AO at para No. 11 were available but claim was rejected only for the reason that no proper documentary evidence in support of having delivered this forms to CIT (A) was produced. So the only dispute was whether those forms were submitted before the ld CIT or not. The ld AO noted that Assessee has obtained form No. 15G and 15H from the depositors and filed though the interest paid to them was higher than the maximum chargeable to tax.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
