TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omponents of interest find specification in the provision (s. 201(1A)) itself. The obligation to deduct and deposit tax at source is thus with reference to tax deductible, i.e., that liable to be deducted under the provisions of Chapter-XVII of the Act, which provides for a mechanism for a lower (including nil) deduction of tax at source u/s. 197. The fact of the payee company having incurred a loss, so that it was not liable to any tax for the relevant year/s, becomes, therefore, largely irrelevant as far as assessee-payer is concerned. As a corollary, while the tax liable to be deducted at source could be recovered from an assessee-payee, as indeed he is liable to (s.190 r/w s. 191), the interest liability (for delayed payment of tax) cannot. That is, while the liability to tax is a vicarious liability, even as clarified earlier by the Apex Court in Eli Lily Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. ( 2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] that to interest is not. The position shall continue even post-amendment by way of proviso to s.209(1)(d) by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01/04/2012, i.e., AY 2012-13 onwards. This is as both the payee-deductee and the payer-deductor are separately liable to interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), and interest u/s. 244A thereon, with a view to avoid subsequent application/s u/s. 154 in the matter. Any unresolved difference, if any, shall be spelt out by the AO per a speaking order. The AO shall, considering the time lapsed, shall complete the process latest by 31/10/2022. We decide accordingly. - I.T.A. No. 69 to 71/JAB/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2022 - Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon Ble Accountant Member And Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'ble Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Abhijeet Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR ORDER PER BENCH This is a set of three Appeals by the Assessee for three years agitating the order dated 28/9/2017 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad ( CIT(A) for short) dismissing it s appeals challenging it s assessments under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter) dated 21/12/2016 for assessment years (AYs.) 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11. 2. Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by Sh. Srivastava, the ld. counsel for the assessee, that the short, common question of law arising in these a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt. For computation of interest under section 201(1A), there are three elements. One is the quantum on which interest has to be levied. Second is the rate at which interest has to be charged. The third is the period for which interest has to be charged. The rate of interest is provided in the 1961 Act. The quantum on which interest has to be paid is indicated by section 201(1A) itself . Sub-section (1A) specifies on the amount of such tax which is mentioned in sub-section (1) wherein, it is the amount of tax in respect of which the assessee has been declared in default. The object underlying section 201(1) is to recover the tax. In the case of short deduction, the object is to recover the shortfall. As far as the period of default is concerned, the period starts from the date of deductibility till the date of actual payment of tax . Therefore, the levy of interest has to be restricted for the above stated period only. It may be clarified that the date of payment by the concerned employee can be treated as the date of actual payment. (emphasis, ours) Similarly, in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the Apex Court clarified that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided that no penalty shall be charged under section 221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at one per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid and such interest shall be paid before furnishing the statement in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200. Substituted by Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01/7/2010, as under: (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest component paid u/s. 201(1A) was, however, granted to the assessee. While the assessment order/s is silent on this aspect, the appellate order, which is a combined order for all the three years, states that inasmuch as the assessee is not held to be an assessee-in-default, it could not possibly have any grievance, dismissing the assessee s appeals on that basis, and which explains the instant appeals. It may be noted that while the ld. CIT(A) observes (at para 5 of his order) of the assessee being not deemed to be in default due to the payee-company s income being not taxable in India, the assessee s consistent stand, also reflected in the order u/s. 201(1), is of the non-liability to tax deduction on account of the payee having incurred a loss. Meanwhile, as explained by Shri Srivastava, as the assessee had also deducted the interest deposited u/s. 201(1A) from the amounts due to IJM, the latter approached the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court under it s writ jurisdiction (in WP No.19315/2017) for directions to issue refund thereof to the assessee, who in turn would repay the same to IJM. The assessee was also impleaded as respondent No.3 (R3), with the Revenue, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is untenable, as after detailed scrutiny, the respondent No.2 found that the petitioner was assessed at loss and therefore, allowed the TDS credit in its favour. The TDS was refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law. Then, in that situation, no interest recovered from respondent No.3 under section 201(1A) of the Act could be legally retained by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act deducted and deposited by the respondent No. 3 with the office of the ACIT, Jabalpur, ought to have been refunded. 16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, any payment of TDS by the deductor in respect of payment made to deductee petitioner will entitle the deductee to get back such TDS with interest at the time of framing of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. In such eventuality, it was not proper to hold the deductor as assessee in default under section 201(1) nor interest could be levied under section 201(1A) of the Act. 17. For the foregoing reasons and the admission of claim of refund of interest amount payable to respondent No.3 by the respondent No.2 and direction being issued in this regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is. The matter in our view stands concluded by the decisions by the Apex Court in Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd. (supra) and Eily Lily Co. (I) (P.) Ltd. (supra), cited and relied upon by the Tribunal in the first round. The facts of the former case are that tax deductible at source had been paid by the deductee itself, i.e., before the appellant-deductor could satisfy the demand u/s. 201(1), so that it was, despite shortfall in tax deduction at source, not deemed to be in-default for the shortfall in tax deductible. The liability to interest u/s. 201(1A) would, however, obtain, i.e., for the period over which the shortfall obtained and, thus, its levy upheld. The relevant part of the decision reads as under, quoting, with approval, the Board Circular in the matter: (pg. 230) 10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dt. 29th Jan., 1997 issued by the CBDT, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares no demand visualized under s. 201(1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he liability to interest u/s. 201(1A) would nevertheless obtain for the period of the delay in the discharge of the liability to the said tax, so that the two, though related, may not go together. Termini points forming the period for charge of interest stand defined u/s. 201(1A) itself, as indeed in the Board Circular (supra). 5. We are conscious, when we say so, that no tax has been, on account of continued loss/es sustained by IJM, found as payable by it, toward whose tax liability u/s. 4 of the Act the tax deductible at source is. The obligation to deduct tax at source however is with reference to that deductible, and which in the instant case, the payee-company being a non-resident, is w.r.t. s. 195. Sec. 195(2), as indeed s. 197, provide the mechanism for the same in law, whereby the AO can be approached by a deductee in case the tax liability apprehended on the sum being received is lower than that deductible under law, and who would in that case issue a certificate accordingly. Needless to add, the deductor s liability for tax deduction, i.e., the tax deductible at source, with reference to which the liability to interest u/s. 201(1A) arises, is to be reckoned with ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax was required to be deducted and deposited to the time when it actually is , would attract compensatory interest u/s. 201(1A). The instant case, however, is none of these. The tax deductible stands deposited, albeit upon being assessed u/s. 201(1), and a refund of the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) is being claimed on the basis that the entire tax deducted stands since claimed as refund by the payee (IJM), and on that basis, claimed that no liability to tax deduction had in law arisen in the first place. The fallacy in the argument is easy to see. The obligation to deduct tax at source is to be in terms of the provisions of (Chapter XVII-B of) the Act, which, as afore-stated, also provide a mechanism for nil/lower deduction of tax at source. It is with reference to this sum that the assessee is statutorily obliged to deduct tax at source, and in case of default, is to be deemed to be in default. While a direct payment by the deductee (s.191), i.e., toward a vicarious liability, would, for that reason, discharge the demand u/s. 201(1), there is no warrant in law to extend it to the tax assessment of the payee, which may not be forthcoming and, besides, the order u/s. 201(1) shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In other words, inasmuch as the words used in s. 209(1)(d) clearly requires reduction of amount deductible (or collectible) at source, the same would be included in computing the advance tax liability even though not actually deducted and paid. More so, as the Revenue could proceed against the deductor for non compliance of the TDS provisions, recovering not only tax but also the interest for non-deduction in time . The Apex Court, in so deciding, approved the decisions in DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated [2011] 330 ITR 578 (Del) and CIT vs. Madras Fertilizers Ltd . [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad). The decision, as we see it, has two aspects to it. One , that the word deductible is to be read to mean the tax that ought to be deducted, i.e., as per the provisions of Chapter-XVII, giving it thus its natural, intended meaning. This would be so regardless of the fact that the payer had not deducted the tax liable to be deducted at source and, consequently, the assessee-payee has received the entire sum credited to it without deduction of tax and, thus, in fact enjoyed the benefit of additional funds to that extent. A fact it cannot plead to be ignorant of. The amount that was statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, in respect of the same tax, payment by either would serve as the terminus point for computing/working the liability to interest, even as clarified by the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (supra). 8. An Overview We have also; the cited decisions by the Apex Court being specifically w.r.t. 201(1) 201(1A), reviewed the various provisions of Chapter XVII, to find them in harmony and consistent with what stands held by the Apex Court in the decisions afore-cited, being rendered in the context of ss. 201(1) 201(1A). We present an overview thereof, as under: a). the obligation to deduct tax source on any sum paid to a payee, whether resident or non-resident, as required by or under this Act, toward tax on the income comprised therein, is an obligation separate and distinct from that of the payee (s. 4(2) r/w s. 190). The same cannot in fact be demanded from the payee (s. 205) b). the non-discharge of his obligation by the payer therefore results in he being deemed to be an assessee in default for the amount of tax deductible at source, i.e., as required to be deducted by or under the Act (section 201), to the extent not deducted or paid as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem in greater detail which, we must admit, remained to be so in the first instance, whereat the same were looked at summarily, inasmuch as it was argued before us that the matter involved a short question of law, recently answered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee s own case, i.e., involves a settled position of law, so that it was taken as covered matter and read out in full. It was only later; the matter being argued at length, that each of the documents deemed relevant were also read out during hearing at our instance. Our order, thus, though not necessarily required to, true to form, follows the same trajectory. The order/s under section 201(1) and 201(1A), as passed originally, is not on record. The same, nevertheless, deemed the assessee to be in default, both for tax and interest, which sums stand paid by the assessee even as it preferred an appeal/s thereagainst, to no success. Also, the same, for all the years, are prior to 01/07/2012, since when the law is amended to not deem a person as an assessee-in-default upon the payee furnishing specified documents. The appellate order is, again, not on record, though the appeal for AY 2011-12, being delayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the material available on record. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders of the tax authorities, we noted that the case of the assessee is duly covered by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly Co. (India) (P) Ltd . [2009] 312 ITR 225 (SC), wherein, it has been held that the period of default starts from date of deductibility of tax till date of its actual payment by the concerned employee and also in the case of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), wherein, it has been held that when the tax has been paid by the deductee-assessee, the tax could not be recovered once again from the assessee. All facts are not borne out from the assessment orders and the ld. CIT(A) has also not verified the same. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this matter back to the file of AO with the direction that the AO shall verify whether the payment shown in the assessment order is liable for TDS or not. Secondly, if there is any short deduction of tax or not and if there is any short deduction of tax than the receipt and the payee has paid the tax or not and they hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of interest amount paid by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal, raising the following grounds, again, common for all the years: 1. That the Honble CIT (A) was wrong in law in not allowing the refund of the interest amount which is a legal right of the Assessee 2. That the honble CIT(A) was wrong in denying refund of Interest amount paid by the NHAI when there is no demand of the principal amount. 3. That the ld. AO erred in law and on facts in assessment order passed u/s. 143 (3) there is no demand of tax and has totally lost sight of the provisions if IT Act which provided that Refund of interest which is excessive paid by the assessee. 4. That the income tax authority (Assessing Officer) is obliged to refund the amount pursuant to any proceedings by way of appeal or and where such assessment has reducing liability of the assessee (In our case the liability is only of interest amount deposited by the assessee). 10. Our first observation in the matter that inasmuch as the orders by the Tribunal in the first round were not appealed against by either side, the same have attained finality (refer: CIT v. Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax deductible, i.e., as required to by or under the Act, as a plain reading of, both separately and conjunctively, of sections 201(1) 201(1A) also referred to earlier with reference to the words on the amount of such tax used in s. 201(1A). 11. In this regard, we begin by saying that there has been no verification of the basic facts, as required by the Tribunal in the first round, viz: a) what is required to be deducted; b) when it was required to be, and c) when it was finally deposited, be it by the payer or the payee. That the payee s income for the relevant years would be at a loss would only be known only at the end of the year, i.e., lies in the womb of future, while the credits and payments thereto, the earlier of which two incidents attracts the obligation to deduction of tax at source (and, consequently), deposit it to the credit of the Central Government, would take place during the course of the year. The Apex Court in CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) clarified that the profit or loss (which is only negative profit) does not accrue from day to day, but only on their determination by the method of accounting at the end of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporation (supra), as separate and distinct. It is the intermingling of the two, perhaps under the purported sense of equity, that has led to the obfuscating the issue, even as the legal provisions, as their overview and a read together, as indeed required to be ( Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC)), would reveal, well thought out and well-conceived, taking into account different aspects and fact situations. The non-payment of tax deductible (by the payer) being a condition precedent for holding an assessee to be an assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and, consequently, liable u/s. 201(1A), a direct payment (s. 191) by the payee would absolve the deductor for payment u/s. 201 to that extent. This direct payment is only for the tax which the payer was obliged to pay, satisfying the demand thus u/s. 201(1). There is, however, no provision of law which would enable consideration of the tax assessment of the payee, which would be generally much later in time, while framing an assessment u/s. 201(1), even assuming it to be pending at the time, or its modification subsequently on the ground that no tax was ultimately found payable by the payee. The same could also raise a num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept of course the directions by the Tribunal. As already clarified, the Tribunal has, for the years under reference, required the AO to bring on record all the three relevant pieces of information, as afore-noted (see para 11), with reference to which interest liability u/s. 201(1A) is to be ascertained. The Act contemplates satisfaction of a demand u/s. 201(1) or 201(1A) only by actual payment. The AO s finding is thus de hors the facts as well as the directions by the Tribunal. True, the Tribunal in its order dated 20/9/2013, does refer to the decisions where the payee had incurred a loss, so that no tax was payable for the relevant year, and on which basis it stands held in such cases that no liability to tax u/s. 201(1) or s. 201(1A) arises. However, the same do not form part of the Tribunals final decision, which is explicit, and having not been contested, has attained finality. The AO was thus duty bound to give effect to the directions by the Tribunal, a superior forum ( Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation , AIR 1992 SC 711). Any finding by him inconsistent therewith is liable to be set aside. The only course available for the parties, in case the said ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and the law in the matter, which may not be in agreement with that by the AO. On the flip side, we cannot help noting that what Sh. Srivastava in effect states is that an order by the AO can be interfered with only to the extent it is disfavourable to the assesse, which is, for the reason afore-stated, not a valid statement in law. The Apex Court in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) power clarified that even rules 11 and 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, are not exhaustive of the powers of the Tribunal, while in the instant case we find the AO s findings to be not in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, which form the starting point of the set proceedings. The argument is accordingly rejected. 14. We may next advert to the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in IJM Ltd . (i.e., W.P.No. 19315/2017), whereby the Hon'ble Court has held that there could be no liability to interest u/s. 201(1A) in the absence of any liability to tax under section 201(1), as where the payee is assessed at nil or at a loss, as is indeed the case at hand for each of the relevant years. Before we discuss this matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , howsoever paid, included deducted at source (even if not deductible), is to be necessarily allowed, determining the final tax payable or refundable ( Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC)). Where, then, one may ask, is the question of the assessee being not in default u/s. 201(1) in view of the payee (IJM Ltd.) having incurred losses or assessed at a loss ? However, IJM Ltd., the payee, having received refund for the same, along with interest thereon, the said aspect is not in dispute, which thus boils down to the demand of interest, and the question of tax demand u/s. 201(1) is being raised by the assessee in the instant proceedings only in-so-far as it is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the question of the assessee s liability to interest u/s. 201(1A), claiming it to be consequential. That is, the entire issue is being considered from the perspective of IJM Ltd ., i.e., to the extent it is, or continues to be, aggrieved, and which is, as afore-noted, so only due to the illegal action of the assessee in recovering its statutory liability therefrom. And from the stand point of the instant proceedings, cannot be regarded as the correct perspective, which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taxable income being assessed at a loss . The whole purport thus is to avoid an excess deduction of tax as the same would in such a case stand to be refunded, with interest, to the payee, as indeed has been in the instant case for all the years under reference. It would not, in any case, for that reason, i.e., the ultimate refund, lead to the inference of no liability to tax deduction arising, or ceasure of tax liability, which is akin to putting the cart before the horse, making the end point as the starting point, as it were. As explained in CIT v. Central India Inds. Ltd . [1971] 82 ITR 555, 561(SC): There is no provision in the Act which makes the assessment of income dependent on refund. The provisions relating to assessment are independent of refund though the provisions relating to refund may depend on assessment. That is, apart from being inconsistent with and, rather, de hors the provisions of law. The same itself defeats the assessee s reliance on IJM Ltd . (supra) in seeking a direction from us to the Revenue to issue a refund of the interest paid u/s. 201(1A). Any interest paid in excess (of that payable) would stand refundable, along with interest, if any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the cited decisions by the Apex Court, found applicable . The same were not pleaded, much less shown, before us, to be not applicable, and which, where so, would rather raise the issue of the extent to which we could consider this issue in view of the said orders being not disputed. All the questions of law or fact or both, arising have been only in this context. This would also meet the assessee s reliance on the writ order by the Hon'ble High Court dated 11/7/2020, as indeed on the decision in Kamlakshi Finance Corporation (supra), wherein the Apex Court has emphasized the virtue of judicial discipline and judicial precedence. We may here also clarify that we are conscious that the Tribunal, per its order dated 20/9/2013 (for AYs. 2008-09 2009-10), held, qua payments to another company, i.e., SYEC Ltd. that it having been assessed at a loss, no tax liability u/s. 201(1) arose on the assessee and, consequently, to interest u/s. 201(1A). It could thus be argued that the Tribunal ought to be considered as having decided likewise for the second company, i.e., IJM Ltd ., as well. However, as would be apparent from a reading of para 3(2) of its said Order, a similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Time is to necessarily run from the date the obligation is attached and the taxable event in the form of credit or payment to the deductee arises. For an interest provision, time is of essence, which is thus overlooked. The issue thus arising in the instant case is not, as was projected before us, i.e., if the liability u/s. 201(1A) is a concomitant of s. 201(1), but the scope of the obligation toward deduction of tax at source of a payer u/s. 201(1). The same is clearly for the amount which is required to be deducted by or under the Act. Or, more precisely, as afore-noted, if the tax assessment of the payee, which may not obtain in a given case, and would materialize only much after the close of the year, could be determinative of an order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) seeking to enforce a mandatory statutory obligation on default ? The incongruity of the proposition being advanced strikes one on the very face of it. Needless to add, the proposition is de hors the relevant provisions of the Act, i.e., Chapter-II and Chapter-XVII, which are not only plain and unambiguous, but have received clear interpretation by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and, besides, are fair and equitable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a part of advance-tax (s. 205). The tax deduction at source is a statutory obligation, mandatory in character. As further explained in Palam Gas Service v. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 300 (SC), once the section mandates a person to deduct tax at source not only on the sum payable, but also when the sum is actually paid to the contractor, any person who does not adhere to the statutory obligation has to suffer the consequences which is stipulated in the Act itself . In Asst. CIT vs. A.R. Enterprises [2013] 350 ITR 489 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court explained that both, the tax deduction at source and advance-tax, are to be computed with reference to estimated income for the current year. The same cannot therefore by itself be taken as a disclosure of income or indicative thereof, which is only upon filing the return of income, as stipulated in the Act, which every person is obligated to, returning total income , including, thus, all income accrued and received, as well as that deemed to be so. Reference for the purpose was made by it to the provisions of Chapter-XVII of the Act. While the liability to deduct tax at source, inasmuch as it could also be paid direct by the payee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation to advance-tax and, thus, to interest on shortfall therein, is to be with reference to the tax deductible, i.e., as liable to be deducted, even where not deducted and deposited. It is easy to see that it is only where the interest obligation u/s. 201(1A) is worked w.r.t. tax deductible, as the section clearly provides, that would only ensure the Revenue being compensated, as otherwise interest would not arise from either the deductor or the deductee. Similarly, interest u/s. 244A, which is to accompany the grant of a refund by the Revenue, in-so-far as it relates to tax deducted at source, runs again from the first day of the assessment year. Where, as in the instant case, the tax is deducted and deposited subsequent thereto (i.e., the first day of the assessment year), it is only the charge of interest u/s. 201(1A) for the period of shortfall defined therein, that would compensate the Revenue. That is, there is a parity qua interest as between the taxpayers/deductors and the Revenue, which shall stand to be disturbed if the interest u/s. 201(1A), departing from as provided therein and as also clarified by the Apex Court in Eli Lilly Co. (supra), is not worke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , before the Hon'ble Court, which noted as under:- 9. Reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.3 is not directly concerned with the demand made by the petitioner. It has deposited the TDS and interest as per the demand of the Income Tax Department. Further, its appeal for refund of interest is also pending. It is unfortunate that despite the matter being pending with the Hon'ble Court over 10 years; it deciding the same in the first instance on 27/04/2012 (in W.P. No. 15866/2011 W.P. No. 19444/2012), the matter was not taken up in earnest. No application for early hearing was moved with the Tribunal by either party and, on the contrary, the assessee sought adjournment as and when the matter came up for hearing, and the Tribunal kept in the dark about the petitions having been filed and in fact writs issued by the Hon'ble Court, which would have led it to dispose the matter much earlier. Even hearing of these appeals was on account of the Bench declining the assessee s requests for adjournment. As informed, refunds have not been allowed by the Revenue. Be that as it may, this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the principle of interpretation of statutes w.r.t. subsequent amendment, explained in Mitsubishi Corporation (supra) with reference to judicial precedents . Further, this relaxation is without prejudice to s. 201(1A), liability under which survives. The law, traversing the different provisions of the Act as indeed of Chapter-XVII, is found as well-settled, with no ambivalence. Not so doing shall, besides being contrary to law, also fail the compensatory character of the interest provisions as well as the balance between the tax payers/deductors and the Revenue. The decisions in A.R. Enterprises (supra) and Palam Gas Service (supra) have also been found as clarifying different aspects of the matter. We are, accordingly, nay, duty bound to follow the same in-so-far as and to the extent it is consistent with the law as laid down by the Apex Court. 15.2 The matter, in the final analysis, reduces to one of quantum. No arguments qua the same were made before us. As it appears from the Statement of Facts accompanying the Grounds of Appeal (which though are required to be filed before the first appellate authority), as indeed the narration of facts by the Hon'ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
