KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During appellate proceedings, the Kad Steel Rolling Mills vs. ITO Asst. Year –2013-14 - 3– assessee admitted that the forms were indeed filed late but submitted that the delay was due to an inadvertent oversight by their accountant. The CIT(A), however, held that such an explanation did not constitute a valid reason for non-compliance with the statutory provisions. The CIT(A) also noted that while he had the authority to condone delays in filing appeals, he does not have the power to condone delays in the filing of statutory forms like Form No. 15G/H, since such powers lie only with the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, finding the AO’s action in line with the provisions of law, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) and confirmed the demand of Rs. 83,790/- raised for A.Y. 2013– 14.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted Form No. 26A i.e. C.A. Certificate certifying that the payee / recipient of interest income has offered this interest income in it’s return of income. The payees / recipients have taken into account the amount paid by the assessee under the head “income from other sources” in their respective returns of income. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the payees / recipients have already offered this income in their return of income, the assessee cannot be held to an assessee-in-default in terms of Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act, since the income has already been offered to tax by the respective recipients / payees in their return of income. Further, the Counsel for the also submitted that the assessee was in receipt of Form 15GH/H from the recipients / payees and the same had also been deposited with the concerned Tax Authorities, Kad Steel Rolling Mills vs. ITO Asst. Year –2013-14 - 4– though there was admittedly a minor delay in filing of the same. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in light of the above facts i.e. the recipients have already offered the interest payment made by the assessee in their respective returns of income (as evidenced by Form 26A) and also taking into consideration the fact that such delay in filing of Form 15G/H was only a small / minor technical default, this is not a fit that where the assessee should be levied with penalty and interest under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act.

In response, Ld. DR. placed reliance on the observations made by the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer in their respective orders.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

In the case of Bhushan Logistics (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax-Officer [2022] 140 taxmann.com 521 (Mumbai - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee made payment of interest to non-banking financial corporations without deduction of tax at source and Assessing Officer disallowed interest under section 40(a)(ia), as assessee submitted before Tribunal by way of additional evidence copies of Form No. 26A to prove that such NBFC had taken into account sum received as interest from assessee while computing its taxable income, issue was to be remanded to Assessing Officer for adjudication after verification of details submitted by way of additional evidence.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/08/2025