SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WP 100847-850/2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.100847-850/2016 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Syndicate Bank, Represented by Shri Ramachandra Tukaram Kamble, Senior Branch Manager, Shahapur Branch, Mahatma Phule Road, Shahapur, Belagavi – 590 003. ..PETITIONER (By Sri H.R.Kambiyavar, Sri B.S.N.Prasad, & Sri Prakash Badiger, Advs.) AND: 1. The Income-Tax Officer (TDS), FK Commercial Complex, Opp. District Hospital, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Road, Belagavi – 560 001. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), FK Commercial Complex, Opp. District Hospital, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Road, Belagavi – 560 001. ..RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Adv.) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 2nd respondent

WP 100847-850/2016 2 to dispose of the appeals filed before him by the petitioner against the orders passed by the 1st respondent on 18.02.2015 under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, vide TAN BLRSO5883D for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 (Annexures-F1 to F4) within such time as this Court may be pleased to. These writ petitions coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:- ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Raviraj, learned Counsel who has taken notice for the Revenue. 2. Petitioner – Syndicate Bank has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi, challenging the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 201(1)(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. An application was filed seeking stay of the order passed by the 1st respondent. The Appellate Authority has rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-Bank has approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. 3. Several contentions have been urged on merits. One of the contentions urged by the petitioner is, that petitioner had contended that it could not be held to be an assessee in default

WP 100847-850/2016 3 under the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act as payee had filed returns of income declaring interest received from the petitioner and had paid tax thereon. Indeed, it has urged that copy of the letter issued by the 1st respondent in this regard is produced along with the writ petition. It is, therefore, urged that if only the 2nd respondent had taken into consideration payment of tax by the Visweswaraiah Technological University – payee, the Appellate Authority would not have passed the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further brings to the notice of the Court, a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.6035-38/2015 disposed of on 14.03.2016, wherein in similar circumstances, the Division Bench has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the application filed for interim stay that had been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and the matter has been remitted to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration, keeping in mind the question whether the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the case. 4. In the present case also, facts involved are similar. Fact that Appellate Authority has not considered the certificate

WP 100847-850/2016 4 issued in Form-26A regarding payment of tax by the payee – Visweswaraiah Technological University is apparent. Indeed, a certificate issued and addressed to the 1st respondent on 06.05.2015 in this connection is produced at Annexure-S along with the writ petition. Therefore, the matter deserves fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances and in the light of the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act. 5. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made herein above. All other contentions are kept open. 6. Learned Counsel Mr. Y.V.Raviraj appearing for the Revenue is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today. SD/- JUDGE KK