ACIT, NAGERCOIL vs. M/S. KRISHNAVAKA BENEFIT FUND LTD., NAGERCOIL
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was not required to deduct TDS when Form 15G/15H was furnished by depositors, it was obligatory to submit these forms to the Commissioner. Failure to do so attracts penalty under Section 272A(2)(f), not disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Nidhi company, claimed interest expenditure on deposits but did not deduct TDS. The assessee submitted Form 15G/15H from depositors, but failed to furnish these forms to the tax authorities within the prescribed time.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted for non-deduction of TDS when Form 15G/15H was submitted by depositors, and whether failure to furnish these forms to the Commissioner attracts penalty or disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 194,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 272A(2)(f)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Madurai, dated 13.06.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13 deleting the filed cross-objection in respect of the same order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we heard both the appeal and the cross- objection together and disposing of the same by this common order.
There was a delay of 16 days in filing the cross-objection by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. D.R. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the cross-objection before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the cross-objection.
Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee is a mutual benefit company engaged in the business of finance. The company was declared as Nidhi company by Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
According to the Ld. D.R., in the Profit & Loss account, the assessee claimed an amount of ₹3,26,76,297/- as expenditure towards interest payment on the deposits. The assessee, however, has not deducted tax as required under Section 194 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., when the assessee paid interest to persons / depositors exceeding
3 C.O. No.176/Mds/17 ₹5000/- during the financial year, then the assessee is required to deduct tax under Section 194 of the Act. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the depositors furnished Form 15G / 15H for non-deduction of tax. Referring to Rule 29C of Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Ld. D.R. submitted that when the assessee accepts declaration Form 15G / 15H, the same shall be delivered to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction to assess the assessee. In fact, Form 15G / 15H shall be furnished to the respective Chief Commissioner / Commissioner on or before 7th day of the month next following the month in which the declaration is furnished to the assessee. Unfortunately, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee had not delivered the copies of Form 15G / 15H to the respective Commissioner / Chief Commissioner, therefore, there is no justification for non-deduction of tax. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the interest payment to the extent of ₹58,76,272/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
On the contrary, Shri N. Subramonian, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the depositors furnished Form 15G / 15H, therefore, the assessee has not deducted any tax at source at the time of paying or crediting interest on the deposit. Referring if the law requires to deduct tax and the assessee fails to deduct the same, then there can be disallowance. In this case, according to the Ld. representative, when the recipients of the interest on the deposit filed Form 15G / 15H, then the law does not require the assessee to deduct tax, therefore, there cannot be any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Referring to Section 272A(2)(f) of the Act, the Ld. representative submitted that this Section provides for levy of penalty in case Form 15G / 15H was not furnished to the Commissioner / Chief Commissioner as the case may be. So, according to the Ld. representative, at the best, the Department may levy penalty for not furnishing Form 15G / 15H received by the assessee from the depositors and definitely there cannot be any disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R., the assessee has not deducted tax at the time of crediting or paying interest on the deposits. When the assessee received Form 15G / 15H from the depositors, then the assessee cannot deduct tax. It is also obligatory on the part of the depositors to the respective Commissioner / Chief Commissioner within the prescribed time. In this case, it is not in dispute that the assessee received Form 15G / 15H but admittedly it was not filed before the Commissioner / Chief Commissioner before the prescribed date. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee received Form 15G / 15H, there is no necessity to deduct tax. The law does not require the assessee to deduct tax when the depositors file 15G / 15H. However, there was negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the copies of Form 15G / 15H to the respective Commissioner / Chief Commissioner. As rightly submitted by the Ld. representative for the assessee, Section 272A(2)(f) of the Act provides for levy of penalty in case such forms were not furnished before the Commissioner / Chief Commissioner. Therefore, at the best, penalty may be levied under Section 272A(2)(f) of the Act and definitely there cannot be any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. The orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted.
The cross-objection filed by the assessee is only in support of the order of the CIT(Appeals), therefore, it becomes infructuous.
In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
More judgments on Section 194
- Income Tax Officer- 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs Glentrans Shipping & Logistics (I) Private…ITA 9299/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Omkara Impex and Merchandise LLP, Ahmedabad vs ITO, TDS Ward 2, AhmedabadITA 662/AHD/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2026AY 2014-15
- Raj Kumar Palia, Bhopal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Itarsi…ITA 453/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2026AY 2009-10
- Aditi Infrabuild and Services Ltd., Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-30, DelhiITA 5970/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, DhanbadITA 289/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026