TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of additional evidence has not been challenged, the solitary issue which remains for consideration is whether delay in furnishing of Form 15G to the Department can be a ground to impose liability under section 201(1) of the Act on account of alleged default for non-application of TDS under section 194A read with section 197 of the Act, which as submitted above in light of the judgment is absolutely not tenable. In view of the aforesaid discussions and precedent relied upon, as aforesaid, Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and speaking order and rightly held that assessee did not wilfully or contumaciously act in disregard of its objection under the law and the mistake was bonafide and no loss to revenue occurred for failure in submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 3. That the appellant craves for permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a TDS Inspection u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee PR on 01/09/2011. During the course, of inspection, part information and the documents were furnished by the assessee PR. The summon u/s 1 31 of the I. T. Act, 1961 were issued to the P.R. for furnishing the. remaining information on 06/09/2011. The proceedings were attended from time to time by the P.R. or its representative. Later on, the final show cause notice dated 24.1.2012 was served upon the P.R. requiring it to furnish reply by 13/02/12. The assessee PR attended the office on 21.2.2012 agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ault uls 201 (1) of the I. T. Act 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source on interest payments to different persons for violation of provisions of section 194A of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response to the same, assessee filed his reply. After considering the reply of the assessee, AO observed that assessee PR has failed to deduct tax at source on the interest payments made to its depositors as per the provisions of section 194A of the I.T. Act 1961. The AO further observed that neither the PAN of the depositors were mentioned on the Form No. 15G/15H submitted by the assessee PR nor photocopies of the PANs were attached alongwith form No. 15G/15H . Further, no cognizance of the fresh Form No. 15G/15H submitted by the assessee PR now can be take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the same, the Appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. - 145 ITD 370 (Mum) Karwat Steel Traders vs. ITO - 46 SOT 71 (Mum) Vipin P. Mehta vs. ITO - 66 SOT (Del) Vijaya Bank vs. ITO - 152 ITD 497 (Bang.) Capital Pharma vs. ITO - 157 ITD 512 (Chennai) Narasu s Spinning Mills vs. ACIT - CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala reported in 277 ITR 315 (P HC). 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us, especially the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. After perusing the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), I find that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issues in dispute vide his impugned order dated 25.11.2014 vide para no. 3 4 at page no. 6 and held as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us interest of ₹ 23444.10 on A/c of Form No. 15G/H obtained in cases where interest paid was in excess of amount not chargeable to tax. The addition is restricted to ₹ 1,88,250/- on account of short deduction of tax u/s 201 (1) and ₹ 23444.10 being interest u/s 201 (A). 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 7.1 After going through the records, I am of the view that Revenue has disputed the deletion of liability of ₹ 30,01,627/- (correct figure ₹ 29,90,256) on account of TDS of interest paid in respect of depositors for whom Form 15G and 15H were not furnished at the time of survey but certainly made available during the appellate / assessment proceedings for which, no adverse observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Tribunal, no case for interference is made out. It is clear that the default in the present case is merely of technical or venial in nature. 7.2 I also find that Revenue has not challenged the admission of additional evidence before the Tribunal and therefore, once the admission of additional evidence has not been challenged, the solitary issue which remains for consideration is whether delay in furnishing of Form 15G to the Department can be a ground to impose liability under section 201(1) of the Act on account of alleged default for non-application of TDS under section 194A read with section 197 of the Act, which as submitted above in light of the judgment is absolutely not tenable. In view of the aforesaid discussions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
