STATE BANK OF INDIA,KUDITHINI vs. CIT, GULBARGA

This is an appeal filed by the assessee, against the order of the CIT (A), Gulbarga, dt.09.11.2015, for the assessment year 2012-13.

In the assessee’s case , during TDS verification , it was found that the assessee bank deducted TDS at Rs. 29,77,536/- on the interest payments to the term depositors . But, it remitted Rs. 2,54,995/- only to the Central Government account. Hence, there was a short remittance of TDS deducted at Rs. 27,22,541/-. A show cause notice was sent to the assessee on 11.03.2013 for non remittance of TDS and it was asked why it should not be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) . In ITA.51/Bang/2016 Page - 2 response, the assessee bank could not explain reasons for non remittance of TDS deducted into government account and it is stated in the order that Sri. L. S. Desai, Branch Manager appeared and produced copies of challans for Rs.2,54,995/- only. Thus, the ACIT, TDS Circle, Bellary passed an order u/s.201(1) / 201(1A) dt.27.03.2014 for the assessment year 2012-13 determining Rs.37,02,641/-, as the TDS liability along with Rs.9,80,100/-, the interest payable u/s.201(1A) . The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A), Gulbarga, and the CIT (A ) dismissed the appeal in his order dt.09.11.2015. Aggrieved , the assessee filed this appeal with following grounds:

We heard the rival submissions on the condonation prayer and condone the delay. The AR submitted that in the case of banks using CBS software, interest payable on time deposits is calculated generally on daily basis or monthly basis and is swept & parked accordingly in the provisioning account for the purpose of macro monitoring only but constructive credit is given to the depositors/payee’s account either at the end of the financial year or at periodic intervals as per practice of the bank or as per the depositor’s/payee’s requirement or on maturity or on encashment of time depositors whichever is earlier. He further submitted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to produce Form 15H/G etc and relied on this Tribunal decision in the case of State Bank of India , Hosepet City Branch, Hosepet Vs CIT(A) Gulburga in to 5 (Bang) 2016 dt 16.9.206. Per contra, the DR relied on the CIT (A) and pointed out the CIT ITA.51/Bang/2016 Page - 9 (A) has found that the assessee did not have valid Form 15H/Gs and at best they were defective and quoted the C’s IT(A) finding that “the contention of the appellant bank in the ground no.7 is that the payer cannot be blamed because at the time of paying the amount, payer has to rely upon the declaration filed by the payee even though it is incomplete and even though the payer has failed to submit the copy of same to the CIT. This contention is not acceptable. The due weight should be given to the provisions of the Act and the bank should follow the provisions. If any depositors filed incomplete/ defective form 15G/H, the bank should treat it as defective and rejected exemption claimed by the depositor & deduct TDS. Even the depositor can be asked to rectify the defect before it is collected or accepted. For e.g., if anyone opening the account does not fill the form correctly or does not follow RBI guidelines for opening account, banks refuse to open and operate that account. Similarly caution and adherence should be observed in relation to provisions of Income Tax Act. As contested by the appellant bank in ground no.8 to consider the delayed submission of Form 15G/H, there is no evidence produced that the copies of Form 15G/H were produced before jurisdictional CCIT / CIT.”

We have heard the rival submissions. This Tribunal , in the case cited, supra, has set aside the matter to the AO as under :

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.