ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 491/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 November 2017AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, considering whether deductees had paid tax and if there was any delay. No demand under section 201(1) should be raised if deductees paid tax, but interest under section 201(1A) may be applicable for delays.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of demand raised by the AO under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The assessee requested the matter be restored to the AO for a fresh decision based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in raising demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) and whether the deductees had paid their taxes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Chandrasekhar V., Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. B. R. Ramesh, JCIT DR
Hearing: 14.11.2017Pronounced: 15.11.2017

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and this is directed against the order of CIT (A) – Hubli dated 30.12.2013 for Assessment Year 2007 – 08.

2.

The revenue has raised as many as 7 grounds but the only effective grievance of the revenue is regarding the deletion of the demand raised by the AO u/s 201 (1) & 201 (1A).

3.

Learned DR of the revenue supported the order passed by the AO u/s 201 (1) & 201 91A). learned AR of the assessee submitted that the matter may be restored to AO for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola beverage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 293 ITR 226 and of Hon’ble Karnataka High court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. as reported in 384 ITR 77. He submitted that the assessee will produce the evidence regarding the payment of tax by the deductees and in that situation, no demand can be raised u/s 201 (1) and Page 2 of 2 demand can be raised for interest u/s 201 (1A) if there is any delay in payment by the deductees.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. We feel that in the facts of the present case, the matter should go back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola beverage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) and of Hon’ble Karnataka High court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (Supra) after examining these facts that the deductees has paid tax or not and whether there is any delay in such payment. We order accordingly. The assessee should produce the evidence regarding the payment of tax by the deductees and in respect of those parties where deductees has made payment of tax as per law after considering the impugned income on which no tax is deducted by the assessee, no demand should be raised u/s 201 (1) although demand u/s 201 (1A) can be raised in respect of delay in payment, if any.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →