9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No.3 to 6 are not argued by the Ld.AR during the appeal hearing. Therefore Ground No.3 to 6 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.2 is related to the interest payments levied u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of Rs. 68,24,522/- which was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Banking company and a Survey u/s 133A was conducted in this case on 14.09.2009 and the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has paid the interest on deposits to the extent of Rs. 6,00,34,859/- out of which the AO found that the interest payment of Rs. 3,80,32,971/- was within the threshold limit for deduction of tax at source. The AO also found that the assessee has not aggregated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eries raised by IBA in letter No.OPR/10- 42/2056 dated 09.08.1995, that in case of deposits in joint names, the applicability of provisions u/s 194A with reference to the limit of Rs. 10,000/- to be considered only in the hands of first deposit holder. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the TDS liability u/s 201 and interest u/s 201(1)(1A) to the extent of Rs. 5,03,108/- in 82 cases and confirmed the amount to the extent of Rs. 68,24,522/- in 162 cases after examination of the details filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). 6. Against which the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the AO has followed the Circular No.256 and treated the assessee as assessee in default to the extent of Rs. 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on record. The only issue in this case is tax liability on joint deposit holders. As per the information placed before the Ld.CIT(A) in para No.5.1.2 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the interest payments covering joint accounts was Rs. 72,40,704/-. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the clarification letter issued by CBDT to Indian Banks Association and allowed partial relief to the assessee. As seen from the order of Ld. the CIT(A), we observe that the Ld.CIT(A) examined the details and confirmed the amount to the extent of Rs. 68,24,522/- in respect of 162 cases. During the appeal hearing, for a query from the bench, the Ld.AR neither furnished the actual tax liability nor furnished the details. The case was posted for hearing in as many as 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
