Case Law Details
ACIT Vs TCIL Bina Toll Road Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
In the instant case, the assessee has obtained two TAN from the Department in its name, one is taken for office at Bina Madhya Pradesh and another one is taken at Delhi. The assessee has deducted TDS on contractual payments to its holding company under Section 194C of the Act @0.25% as per the lower deduction certificate issued under Section 197 to the holding company of the assessee company. Based on the certificate issued, the assessee has deducted TDS @ 0.25% as mandated in the certificate. However while depositing the TDS deducted, the assessee has wrongly mentioned the TAN allotted for Delhi office instead of Bina Madhya Pradesh Office. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Department immediately but the defect could not be cured in the absence of any provision for such type of rectification. The CIT(A), in the factual matrix, has taken a just and fair decision and reversed the demand under Section 200A attributable to merely wrong mention of TAN in the TDS deposit challan. We see no error in the relief granted by the CIT(A) on equitable grounds. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 12.02.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 200A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2014-15.
2. Briefly stated, the assessee is a subsidiary of Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL), a Government of India Undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry of Communication. As stated, the assessee company deducted TDS at a lower rate of 0.25% on payments made to its holding company, i.e., TCIL in compliance of certificate furnished to it by the holding company. However, the assessee-company at the time of depositing the TDS deducted inadvertently and wrongly mentioned TAN allotted by Delhi office, i.e., DELT10348C instead of TAN of Bina Madhya Pradesh Unit, i.e., BPLT01777G and filed its TDS return accordingly with its Delhi TAN. In essence, the assessee-company mentioned wrong TAN instead of correct TAN on which the lower deduction certificate was issued under Section 197 to the holding company of the assessee. Due to the inadvertent mistake in quoting TAN of different unit, the Assessing Officer created a demand u/s.200A alleging lesser deduction of tax on payments made to holding company.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
