THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-SDM,PATIALA vs. ITO (TDS), PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1007/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 February 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held responsible for non-deduction or delayed deposit of TDS as no payment was made to beneficiaries until the court's final order. The deposit was made promptly after receiving funds and court directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDM, Patiala, was found liable for interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of TDS. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised a demand of Rs. 3,73,860/- for not depositing TDS within the prescribed time.

What were the issues?

Whether interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable for delayed TDS deposit when the payment to beneficiaries was contingent on a court order and funds were received late.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A),Section 194A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member :

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] relating to 2014-15 assessment year.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in concurring with the findings of the Ld. AO in levying the interest u/s 201(1A) by holding that the Appellant has made the payment to the individual beneficiary and there is a delay in making the payment by the Appellant to the respondent-department whereas as per the Appellant the said finding is erroneous and there is no delay in making the payment with the respondent-department, it is therefore prayed that the order levying interest may kindly be set-aside. 2. That the assessee prays for any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal before the disposal of the same. 3. That the assessee prays for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee.

ITA-1007/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 2 of 3

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the

Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDM, Patiala. A survey under

Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the office premises

of the assessee on 10.01.2014 and assessee was found liable

for payment of interest of Rs. 3,73,860/-under the provisions

of Section 201(1A), calculated @ one and half percent for every

month or part of a month on the amount of tax deducted and

delayed deposit of the same beyond the prescribed time on

23.01.2014. The AO declared the assessee in default u/s

201(1) of the Income Tax Act for not depositing the TDS into

Central Government account within time as per provisions of

Chapter XVIIB of the Act and demand of interest amounting to

Rs. 3,73,860/- was raised.

4.

The CIT(A) considering the facts and circumstances,

confirmed the order of the AO against which the assessee is in

appeal before us.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the

material on record. Both the parties state that the issue is

squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this

Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in ITA No.

1516/CHD/2017 dated 13.04.2018 in revenue’s appeal. The

relevant findings of the Tribunal in the aforementioned appeal

are as under :

5.

We observe that, the action of the PR is quite clear from the conduct of depositing the TDS after release from the Hon'ble Court on 09/01/2014 to the treasury and deposited the same on 23/01/2014 immediately after the receipt of funds. The letter of PUDA to deduct TDS has no application in the light of the fact that the matter was sub-judice in the court. Mere fact that the PR has deposited TDS in its TAN will not make him responsible because he had done it in order to comply with the directions of the court. The provisions of Sec. 194A of the Act ore quite clear and unambiguous in this regard. The law is clear that only the person who is responsible for making the payment is required to make TDS at the time of its credit to the account of such person or at the time of making payment. In the facts and

ITA-1007/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 3 of 3

circumstances of the case the PR cannot be held responsible for non deduction of the TDS as no payment has been made to the beneficiaries by the PR till the final order of the Court. And since there was no delay in payment of TDS to the Central Government Account by the PR after release of the amount, we hereby hold that no violation of TDS provisions are attracted with relation to the PR. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. Considering facts and circumstances, we find that the

issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in

ITA No. 1516/CHD/2017 dated 13.04.2018. Therefore,

following the same, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

7.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on

19th February, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- ( संजय गग� ) (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता ) (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �याय�क सद�य/ Judicial Member ‘Poonam’ आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ By order सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →