ALLAHABAD BANK,ALIGARH vs. ITO TDS & SURVEY, ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 229/AGR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 July 2019AY 2001-024 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, stating that the assessee failed to prove that no loss was caused to the revenue due to non-deduction or short deduction of TDS. The assessee did not provide details of depositors to verify income declaration.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank failed to deduct TDS on interest paid to its depositors. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, but the assessee failed to provide necessary details or cooperate. The Assessing Officer passed an order treating Flexi Fix Deposits as Time Deposits and upholding TDS liability.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee bank is liable for short deduction of TDS on interest paid on deposits, and whether the assessee discharged its onus to prove no loss to revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194A,Section 201(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Hearing: 15.07.2019Pronounced: 15.07.2019

In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra

Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member

ITA Nos.229 to 235/Agr/2017 Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2007-08

Allahabad Bank, AMU vs. Income-tax Officer(TDS), Branch, Aligarh. (PAN: Aligarh. AACCA8464F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 15.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2019

ORDER Per Bench: These are the appeals filed by Allahabad Bank, AMU Branch, Aligarh, feeling

aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2017 on the following grounds :

1.

Because the learned CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in justifying the act of Assessing Officer in treating the Flexi Fix Deposit as Time Deposit.

2.

Because the learned CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not accepting the appellant submissions regarding interest paid on NRE Accounts.

3.

Because the learned CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating the fact that maximum number of depositor has already included the interest amount and paid tax accordingly while filling their return of income.

4.

Because the learned CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the TDS liability in respect of the depositors who are exempts from tax.

ITA Nos. 229 to 235/Agr/2017 2

5.

Because the order passed/assessment done was without given proper opportunity, perverse, against the fact and law of the case and liable to be quashed.

2.

None was present on behalf of the assessee and therefore, we have taken the

matter as heard and are deciding the matter in absence of assistance by the counsel

for the assessee.

3.

In these appeals, the order u/s. 201(1) was passed by the lower authorities

for F.Yrs. 2000-01 to 2006-07 on account of short deduction of TDS to be deducted

on the interest other than the interest on securities u/s. 194A of the Income-tax Act,

1961. Later on, a rectification order was also passed by the Assessing Officer.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, appeals were filed

before the Commissioner and the Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the

Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.09.2011.

4.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the

assessee has preferred the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order

dated 20.06.2014 has restored back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for

fresh adjudication.

5.

In these facts, the assessee approached the Assessing Officer and asked by the

Assessing Officer to discharge its onus to prove that no loss to the Revenue is caused

ITA Nos. 229 to 235/Agr/2017 3

on account of non-deduction of TDS, as the payee had paid the Income-tax in

accordance with law and also in accordance with decision of the Tribunal (supra).

6.

The assessee has not cooperated with the Assessing Officer and has not filed

any details with the Assessing Officer and as such, the Assessing Officer was left with

no other option but to pass the impugned order before us.

7.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee

had preferred appeal before the CIT(A). However, before the CIT(A), none had

appeared and as such the ld. CIT(A) has proceeded ex parte against the assessee.

8.

Now the assessee is before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. Today,

none is present on behalf of the assessee despite the notices were duly served upon

the assessee for the last date of hearing, i.e., 09.07.2019 and also intimation was sent

for today’s hearing, i.e., 15.07.2019.

9.

We have heard the ld. DR and it was the contention of the ld. DR that the

assessee has nothing to support the case before the Assessing Officer as well as

before the Commissioner and also before this Tribunal and therefore, there is no

representation on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal. We have gone through

the order passed by the Tribunal. Firstly, the assessee failed to comply with the

directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.06.2014 whereby the matter

was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Nothing was brought on record

by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or before the first appellate authority or

ITA Nos. 229 to 235/Agr/2017 4

before us. In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the contention of the

assessee before us and accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is

confirmed, as the assessee had failed to demonstrate that no loss is caused to

Revenue on account of non-deduction of TDS or short deduction of TDS by the

assessee bank while making the payments to its erstwhile employees on account of

accrual of interest etc. In fact, the assessee has not provided the details of the

employees, their addresses and PAN so that it can be verified by the Assessing

Officer on his own to find out whether the said employees have declared this

interest income in their returns of income or not. In the light of the above, all the

appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed on merits.

10.

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial member

Dated: 15.07.2019 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra Bench, Agra

More judgments on Section 194A

All 1,500 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →