9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand created as a result of order dated 29th February 2016, thereby treating the assessee in default is arbitrary, against the natural justice and bad in law. 3. That the authorities below ought not to have treated the assessee in default u/s 201 read with section 201(1A) of the Act in respect of such payees who had furnished Form No. 15G/15H of the Act and consequently the TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 4. That the Assessing Officer ought not to have included such items of interest on which TDS has been deducted and paid by the assessee and explained before the CIT (Appeals) and consequently the TDS demand, as created by the Assessing Officer, is arbitrary, unjust and at any rate very excessive. 5. That the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) both ought not to have created the TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act against the assessee in respect of such items of interest, which have been included by the payees in their respective income-tax returns and have paid the income- tax thereon and accordingly the TDS demand as created by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary, unjust and at any rate very excessive. 5) Theabove g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time and deposited with the Government account. However, in some of the cases, various persons have filed Form No. 15G/ 15H in accordance with the provisions of Section 197A of the Act which makes them eligible to receive interest without deduction of TDS prescribed u/s 194A of the Act. During the course of enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act, the AO came to know that out of the persons, who have filed Form No. 15G/ 15H, are enjoying interest more than the taxable limit prescribed under the IT Act and accordingly the Bank authorities should not accept Form No. 15G/15H and then thereafter, without issuing a proper notice u/s 201 of the Act, passed the order u/s 201 and held the bank as assessee in default in terms of Section 201(1) of the Act in relation to the persons who were enjoying interest on their deposits more than the taxable limit, the list whereof has been given itself in the combined order passed u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act for the Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15., thereby ordering to recover the following demand from the assessee vide order dated 29th February 2016: Financial Year 2013-14 Amount of TPS to be deducted Interest u/s 201(1A) Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el/2012 dated 4th March 2016, after following the judgment of the Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of the assessee itself, has quashed the proceedings u/s 201 of the Act on the similar lines. The Delhi Bench of the ITAT, while holding so, has also referred to the judgment of the Agra Bench in the case of Allahabad Bank (Aligarh Branch), wherein the Agra Bench also followed the judgment of the Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. in 345 ITR 288. In the instant case also, though the AO mentioned the name of the persons who had submitted Form No. 15G/15H to the Allahabad Bank, Wright Ganj Branch and to whom the interest has been paid by the Bank without deduction of tax, but the AO has not given any finding about the pendency of demand against the payees and in the absence of such jurisdictional fact, the AO cannot treat the deductor as assessee in default in terms of Section 201 of the Act. In the order, the AO has simply stated that the figure of interest paid to those very persons shows that the recipient income would be taxable because the interest is more than the taxable limit and on such basis the bank should not have accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. ii) 155 Taxman 447 (Del) CIT Vs. Majestic Hotel Ltd. In the instant case, the AO has charged the tax arbitrarily without finding out the actual date of payment by the recipient assessee and accordingly the interest charged by the AO deserves to be deleted. All the persons to whom the interest has been paid by the bank are assessed to tax and a chart showing the name and address of the recipient assessee along with their PAN and the compilation is attached herewith. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon order u/s 201(1)/201(A) of order of CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon following decision: Arihant Invest Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS-2, Guwahati (ITAT, Guwahati) Income Tax Appeal No 73 of 2012/27-01-2015. 7. The Ld. AR in rejoinder submitted that the Department is relying upon the judgment of Gauhati Bench of the ITAT in the case of Arihant Invest vs. ITO-TDS in ITA No. 73/2012 dated 27th January 2015. The facts of the case of Gauhati Bench are different from the assessee-bank. Moreover, the assessee bank is governed by the Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad who is having a superior authority than the Gauhati Bench. Accordingly, the principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
