Tribunal held that, order passed by AO raising demand u/s.201(1) was beyond limit provided in sub-section (3) for quarter Nos.1 to 3. However, return for quarter No.4 was filed in financial year 2009-10 and order raising demand u/s 201(1) was passed before expiry of two years from end of financial year in which TDS return was filed and hence, same had been filed within time. Accordingly the AO was directed to delete demand raised for quarter Nos.1 to 3 and sustained demand for quarter No.4.U/s 201(3) no limit was provided for passing order charging interest u/s 201(1A), hence assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) and said order of AO was upheld. Assessee’s appeal partly allowed. (AY. 2009-10)
Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2018) 165 DTR 88/ 169 ITD 675 / 193 TTJ 404 (Pune) (Trib.)
S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation- Order passed by AO raising demand u/s.201(1) is beyond limit provided in sub-section (3) for quarter Nos.1 to 3 then, AO could be directed to delete demand raised for quarter Nos.1 to 3. and sustained demand for quarter No.4–U/s.201(3) no limit was provided for passing order charging interest u/s 201(1A), hence assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) and said order of AO was upheld – Partly allowed.[S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3)]