Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI
Before: SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.:
The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders of even date 27.12.2021, passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. In all the appeals, the only issue involved relates to levying of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. At the outset, we find that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation of 314 days. The assessee has given the following reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal:
The appellant is the Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli working under the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
:-2-:
The order dated under appeal was uploaded on the departmental portal but due to Covid-19 pandemic and the relaxation in limitation for filing appeal till 31/03/2022 the appeal could not be prepared. The order was handed over to the advocate Mr Ashutosh Sharma for doing the needful. Meanwhile the then CMO got transferred and unfortunately Mr Ashutosh Sharma became seriously ill and had to be hospitalized for several months. His hospitalization documents are attached for ready reference.
Soon after release of Mr Ashutosh Sharma form the hospital when he resumed work the appeal was prepared and is being filed today 4. Admittedly there is a delay of 314 days. However the delay is due to circumstances beyond control and due to illness of the advocate for which the appellant may not be treated as defaulter and the inadvertent delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. The appellant is a Government servant acting on behalf of a statutory body and there is no possible ulterior motive in delaying the appeal. 3. After hearing both the parties, we find that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals, therefore, the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing.
The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing and Forwarding Agent and transfer the funds to a State Government undertaking construction agency, named U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. for Rs.7,53,56,000/- in terms of the MoU dated 10.5.2011. The assessee had produced form 26A from U.P.
:-3-:
Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. that they have disclosed this income in their return and have discharged the tax liability of the deductor, i.e., Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli. Since the deductor has fulfilled all the tax liabilities during the financial year 2011-12 and claimed refund in its ITR, therefore, interest cannot be levied. However, the Assessing Officer has levied interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act.
The ld. CIT(A) has held that the Assessing Officer was correct in calculating the interest as per the provisions of section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the deductee has fulfilled the tax liability of payment made by the deductor and has also furnished form 26A. Thus, this is not a case where it can be held that the assessee was in fault in terms of section 201(1) of the I.T. Act. However, interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act is leviable wherein the Principal Officer (deductor) 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. In that case he is 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 deducted; and at one and one-half per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deducted to the date on which such tax is actually paid. If the Principal Officer (deductor) was liable to deduct TDS and if he has not deducted TDS, then interest would be payable till the date on which tax was actually paid by the deductee or till the filing of return of income. Thus, the order
:-4-: of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed, holding that interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act has rightly been levied. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th October 2023