MOBILE TRADING & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) is mandatory but its computation period can be reduced if the payee has filed their return of income and paid taxes. The interest period will run from the date tax was deductible to the date of filing of the return by the payee.
What were the facts?
The assessee received an intimation for short deduction of TDS and consequential interest amounting to Rs. 4,22,710. The short deduction occurred due to deducting tax at a slightly lower rate than prescribed. The assessee argued that no interest should be charged as the recipients had paid their taxes.
What were the issues?
Whether interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable when the recipient has paid taxes, and if so, for what period should the interest be computed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT576 citing293 ITR 226 · 2007 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.1 Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai [CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)59/IT-133/ITO(TDS)- 1(3)(4)/2015-16 dated 30/06/2017 on following grounds of appeal: -
1. NATURAL JUSTICE: 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals - 59, Mumbai, ["The CIT(A)"] be held as held as bad and illegal, as the same is framed in breach of the principals of natural justice.
2 M/s Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2008-09 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 2.1 The Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) -59, Mumbai ["Id. CIT(A)"] erred in confirming, action of the A.O. in making addition on account of Short Deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.91,770/- at Serial No. (2) of the Intimation u/s. 200A dated 07.10.2015. 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called for. 2.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the computation of the same is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and excessive. 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming, action of the A.O. in levying Interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, 1961 for late payment of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.1,18,754/- at Serial No. 3(b) of the Intimation as stated above. 3.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such confirmation was called for. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the calculation of the Interest is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and excessive. 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in setting aside to the A.O., the issue of levying Interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, 1961 for short deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs.93,432/- at Serial No. 4(a) of the Intimation as stated above. 4.2 While doing so the CIT(A) erred in observing that, "interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, 1961 is to be recomputed, the period for which will commence from the date on which tax was first deductible by the appellant deductor and conclude on the date of filing of the relevant return of income by the recipient deductees". 4.3 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the calculation of the interest is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and excessive. 5.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in setting aside to the A.O., the issue of levying Interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, 1961 on Late Deduction/ Collection amounting to Rs.1,18,754/- at Serial No. 4(b) of the Intimation as stated above. 5.2 While doing so the CIT(A) erred in observing that, "interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, 1961 is to be recomputed, the period for which will commence from the date on which tax was first deductible by the appellant deductor and conclude on the date of filing of the relevant return of income by the recipient deductees. 5.3 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 5.4 Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the calculation of Interest is not in accordance with the law, is arbitrary and excessive. 1.2 The registry has noted a delay of 3 day in the appeal which we are inclined to condone keeping in view the length of delay.
3 M/s Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2008-09 1.3 Having heard rival submissions and after due consideration of material on record, our adjudication to the appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 1.4 The relevant facts are that the assessee received an intimation u/s 200A dated 07/10/2015 from TDS, CPC, Ghaziabad in respect of quarterly TDS return in Form No.26Q as filed by the assessee for Q-1 of AY 2008-09. An aggregate demand of Rs.4,22,710/- was raised in the intimation which include following components: - No. Nature Serial no. Amount (Rs.) 1. Short Deduction of Tax 2 Rs.91,770/- 2. Interest on Late Payment 3(b) Rs.1,18,754/- 3. Interest on Short Deduction / 4(a) Rs.93,432/- collection 4. Interest on late deduction 4(b) Rs.1,18,754/- /collection Total 4,22,710/- The default of short deduction arises from the fact that the assessee paid certain sum to two entities and deducted tax at source @5.61% as against correct rate of 5.665%. The interest component is consequential in nature. 1.5 The assessee assailed the interest demand listed at serial nos. 4(a) & 4(b) before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee, inter-alia, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (293 ITR 226) for the submission that since the recipients paid full taxes by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, department could not recover the same from deductor on same income by treating the assessee as assessee-in-default. The assessee submitted that the two payees paid advance taxes by March, 2008 and the tax was fully 4 M/s Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2008-09 paid by September, 2008. In the said background, the assessee asserted that no interest was to be charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act or alternatively, the interest should be charged till the date of payment of taxes by the recipients in the year 2008. 1.6 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred that benefit would be available to the assessee. The cited decision held that interest u/s 201(1A) shall continue till the date of tax payment by the payees. However, the period shall commence from the date on which the tax was first deductible and conclude on the date of filing of return of income by the two payees. In other words, the terminating date shall not be the date of payment of advance tax or self-assessment tax as canvassed by the assessee, The Panaji Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore V./s ITO (ITA Nos.207- 210/Pan/2016 dated 13/02/2017), held that interest u/s 201(1A) was to be computed for the period from the date from which tax was deductible to that date of filing of return of income by the deductee. This is because once any amount is liable for TDS then no interest is charged from deductee in respect of such income. Therefore, till such income is disclosed by the deductee in its return, the liability of tax rests on the deductor. Once the deductee files the return of income by including such income, taxes on the basis of such return has to be paid and the credit of taxes goes to the payee. Similar was the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Maharashtra Pollution Control Board V/s ITO (ITA No.902/Mum/2014 dated 25/08/2016). Even otherwise, the said view was in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sec 201(1A) of the Act. Finally, TDS officer and the assessee was directed to follow the procedure / documents as prescribed and provided in the first proviso to Section 5 M/s Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2008-09 201(1) & 201(1A) read with Rule 31ACB along with notification no.11/2016 dated 02/12/2016 of the CBDT. The assessee was directed to file afresh the requisite details / documents to show the fulfilment of requirements of proviso to Sec.201(1) and allow relief only with respect to impugned interest payable u/s 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
We find that as per the provisions of Sec.201(1), where the assessee, inter-alia, fails to deduct whole or any part of the tax then such persons shall be deemed to be an assessee-in-default. However, as per the first proviso, the assessee shall not be deemed to be assessee-in- default in respect of such tax if the payee has furnished his return of income u/s 139 and has taken into account such payment for computing income and has paid tax due on income declared by him in such return of income. For the same, the payee is required to furnish a prescribed certificate to that effect. Thus, if the assessee could demonstrate the fulfilment of all these requirements, he could not be treated as assessee- in-default. To get the benefit of the proviso, the assessee is directed to demonstrate the fulfillment of these requirements before Ld. TDS officer who shall consider the same. If the same are found in order, the assessee could not be treated as assessee-in-default and the demand raised for short deduction of TDS shall stand deleted. We order so. The ground thus raised stands allowed for statistical purposes.
The computation of interest is governed by the provisions of Sec.201(1A). As per clause (i), The assessee is liable to pay simple interest on short payment of tax from the date on which tax was deductible to the date on which tax was deducted. Clause (ii) provides
More judgments on Section 201(1A)
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026