CIT v. Enron Expat Services Inc. [2011] (330 ITR 496) (Uttarakhand)
Facts:
- The assessee paid salary to its employees during the relevant assessment year (“AY”) but did not deduct tax in each month
- The assessing officer (“AO”) imposed interest on the assessee under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act (“ITA”)
- The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. However, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee
Issue: Is the assessee an “assessee in default” u/s 201 because it did not deduct tax in each month?
Decision:
- Subsection (3) to section 195 of the ITA states that the person responsible for making payment under subsection (1), (1A), (2) , (2A) and (2B) may at the time of making any deduction, increase or reduce the amount to be deducted for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency arising out of any previous deduction or failure to deduct tax during the financial year
- Subsection (3) makes it abundantly clear that if there is a failure to deduct in a financial year, the same can be deducted by way of adjustment during the financial year
- Accordingly, the mandate to deduct tax u/s 192 stands extended to the end of the financial year.
- Accordingly, the assessee is not an assessee in default.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Thanks for the article. Could you please elaborate on the issue of reconciliation. Employer deducted tax as TDS and deposited with IT department. But later IT department sending notices that amount deducted under TDS is less. Dept insists that it had done correctly. IT dept does not agree for reconciliation of accounts.
Under what rule/section IT dept can seek more amount without giving any details, is there any provision for seeking IT dept to come forward for verification of records/reconciliation. If not what is the remedy?
I wish experts on the site may give their valuable suggestions.
Thanks in advance.