TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, there is no need to deduct tax at source and there is no default committed by the assessee - Non filing or delayed filing of such forms can not result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 6822/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2013 - B. RAMAKOTAIAH AND VIVEK VARMA, JJ. For the Appellant : K.S. Choksi. For the Respondent : Manoj Kumar. ORDER:- PER : B. Ramakotaiah This appeal by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 18.7.2011. Assessee has raised the following grounds : "1. (a) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an order by not allowing interest paid to various parties amounting to Rs.530425/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground that filing of non-deduction forms under rule 29C belatedly without considering the facts that the forms have been filed to the statutory authorities. (b) The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the forms has been filed to the correct authority based on the receipt issued by them and has made a wrong presumption without any evidence that the forms have been obtained later on and filed. (c) The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that late filing is merely a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and further pointed out that the assessee has asked the department about the jurisdiction of CIT to whom the forms are to be correctly filed and reply is still awaited. He submitted that non-submission of Form-15H does not lead to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). He relied on various case laws. (1) Vipin P. Mehta vs. Income Tax Officer (2011) 11 taxmann.com 342(Mum). (2) CIT vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. (2009) 181 Taxmann 71 (SC); (3) Valibhai Khandelal Mankad vs. DCIT (OSD) (2011) 12 Taxmann.com 160 (Ahd.); (4) Shram Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.5393/Mum/2010 (AY: 2006-07) dt. 28.03.2012; (5) Vijay Hemant Finance Estate Ltd. vs. Income TaxOfficer (1999) 105 Taxmann 519 (Mad.); (6) CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2005] 277 ITR 315 (Punj Har.); (7) Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 1 (Delhi) (TM); (8) Sudershan Auto General Finance v. CIT [1997] 60 ITD 177 (Delhi); and (9) Gobinder Singh, Jiwan Singh vs. Income Tax Officer(2006) 154 Taxmann 159 (Chd.)(Mag.) 3.2 The ld. DR however submitted that by not filing the declarations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or after deduction has not been paid. No such default occurred in this case. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the facts of the case. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in considering that non-filing of form 15H invites disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). 4.2 Similar issue was considered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vipin P. Mehta (supra) where in it was held:. "Section 194A, read with sections 197A and 40(a)(ia), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Interest other than Interest on securities - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was carrying on business of manufacture and printing of packaging materials - He made payment of interest to 34 parties in excess of Rs. 5000 without deducting tax at source - In response to show cause notice, assessee submitted that all payees to whom interest was paid, had furnished declarations in Form No. 15H/15G, as the case may be, before date on which tax ought to have been deducted and, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax - Assessee also submitted that by oversight he did not submit copies of declarations in Form No. 15G/15H to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him by the payees of the interest, in the office of the Commissioner (TDS) as required by sub-section (2) of section 197A. Apart from this inference, there was no other evidence in their possession to hold that the declarations were not submitted by the payees of the interest to the assessee at the time when the payments were made. Without disproving the assessee's claim on the basis of other evidence, except by way of inference, it would not be fair or proper to discard the claim. The Assessing Officer had not recorded any statements from the payees of the interest to the effect that they did not file any declarations with the assessee at the appropriate time or to the effect that they filed the declarations only at the request of the assessee in September/October, 2008. In the absence of any such direct evidence, the assessee's claim could not be rejected. The Assessing Officer had stated in the assessment order that he found that some of the loan creditors were having taxable income but still the assessee had submitted declarations from them in form No. 15G. Unless it was proved that these forms were not in fact submitted by the loan creditors, the assessee could not be blamed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
