TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to deduct tax under s. 194A of the IT Act, 1961 at the prescribed rate on interest paid/credited exceeding Rs. 10,000 in each case. In financial year 1997-98, the appellant did not deduct tax as the persons to whom interest was paid/credited, furnished declarations in Form No. 15H. Since s. 197A(1A) provides that the responsible person shall not deduct tax if a declaration in Form No. 15H is filed before the due date for deduction, the assessee did not deduct tax. It is not disputed that the assessee had received declarations in Form No. 15H from the persons to whom interest was paid/credited in excess of Rs. 10,000 and accordingly, the appellant was not required to deduct tax. As per the law, the appellant was required to deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank had replied as under: "We note that there was some delay in submitting the declarations in Form No. 15H during the year 1997-98. On taking up the matter with the concerned officials working in the branch during the relevant period, we are informed that they were not fully aware of the procedure of submitting said declarations and they were under the impression that the same are to be submitted along with the annual return of deduction of tax from the interest other than "interest on securities" under s. 206. As such Form 15H were submitted along with the said return on 4th May, 1998. It is further reiterated that all the deductions applicable under the TDS system have been duly effected and the amount deposited in Government account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that penalty in this case is not justified as the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in furnishing all the declarations in Form No. 15H received by him. It may be pertinent to mention that whereas s. 272A(2)(f) provides for levy of penalty in the event of default, s. 273B provides that no such penalty shall be imposed if the assessee establishes reasonable cause for the default. The learned CIT has held that ignorance of law cannot be treated as an excuse. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC), held as under: "There is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
