TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Visvesvaraya Technological University any tax was determined by the Department as payable by Visvesvaraya Technological University and which had become unrecoverable from Visvesvaraya Technological University. However, we find force in the argument of the Departmental Representative, the issue requires to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of additional evidence filed by the assessee in Form 26A and thereafter adjudicate afresh after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and the observations made hereinabove and after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is in excess of ₹ 10,000/- and hence, the assessee bank should have deducted tax at source in accordance with the provisions of sec. 194A(3)(i)(b) of the Act @ 10%, which it had failed to comply with. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that tax was not deducted in respect of payment to Visvesvaraya Technological University as it was existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit and wholly and substantial financed by the Government and is exempt from income tax under the provisions of sec. 10(23)(iiiab) of the Act and therefore, no liability to tax arose and no tax was deductible under sec. 194A. The assessee also produced before the Assessing Officer a letter of Visvesvaraya Technological ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01(1) and 201(1A), determined the amounts payable under sec. 201(1)/(1A) amounting to ₹ 1,62,407/- and ₹ 76,328/- respectively, totalling to ₹ 2,38,735/- in the Assessment Year 2011-12; ₹ 2,08,355/- and ₹ 72,905/- respectively, totalling to ₹ 2,81,260/- in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and ₹ 2,53,343/- and ₹ 58,259/- respectively, totalling to ₹ 3,11,602/- in the Assessment Year 2013-14. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and argued that w.e.f. 01/07/2012, a person who has not deducted TDS will not be deemed to be a person in default if he furnishes a certificate to the effect that the person in respect of whom deduction was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representative of the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence in the form of Form No. 26A for all the assessment years under consideration. It was submitted that originally Form No. 26A signed by the Registrar of Visvesvaraya Technological University instead of Chartered Accountant was filed and thereafter realizing the mistake, the assessee has obtained the required Form 26A signed by the Chartered Accountant. Hence, it was the prayer to admit the additional evidence. Further, it was submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs CIT reported in (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) has held that since the assessee had paid interest under sec. 201(1A) and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer. 11. The Authorized Representative of the assessee has now filed an application for admission of additional evidence in the form of Form 26A on the ground that earlier Form 26A for the years under appeal was signed by the Registrar of the Visvesvaraya Technological University was filed by mistake by the assessee and that fresh Form 26A has been filed duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. Further, it was also the submission that the as the deductee Visvesvaraya Technological University has paid taxes on the interest income by filing its return of income, the assessee was not liable under sec. 201(1) in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recipient of income because as per the recipient, its entire income is exempt or on which no tax is payable, then the income is disclosed to the Department by the principal person who is liable to pay tax thereon and in such cases, unless it can be shown that the due tax could not be recovered by the Department from the principal person, who was liable to TDS until then the payer of the income cannot be treated as Assessee in Default . 14. We find that no material has been brought before us to show that in pursuance to any assessment made in the case of Visvesvaraya Technological University any tax was determined by the Department as payable by Visvesvaraya Technological University and which had become unrecoverable from Visvesvaraya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
