Case Law Details
It is seen that the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) is merely system generated. The appellant is a Government company. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant cannot be saddled with the financial liability merely due to mismatch in data furnished by the appellant by way of Quarterly TDS Return/Statement on one hand and that furnished by the bank or for that matter due to mismatch on processing of data by the computerized system in place. It is not the case of the A.O that the challan particulars mentioned in the TDS Return for the Quarter were actually not paid by the appellant being fake challans. It is not the case of the A.O that the appellant has failed to substantiate deposit of TDS from its bank statement. Appellant has been held liable as assessee in default merely due to technical flaws. Demand has been raised merely due to fault of system and in view of the CBDT’s Instruction No.5/2013 dated 08.07.2013, the demand cannot be sustained.
———————————–
1. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 holding, assessee as an “assessee in default” for short payment/non payment of TDS pertaining to Form No. 24Q4 amounting to Rs. 64,83,640/- and interest amounting Rs. 39,79,790/-.
2. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) held that assessee cannot be made liable for a technical flaw and relying on the Board CBDT Instruction No. 5/2013 dated 08.07.2013, allowed the appeal of the assessee.
3. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR relied on the orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Ld. AR on the other hand, strongly relied on the finding/conclusion of the CIT(A).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
