“assessee in default”

TDS / TCSSection 201Section 2011,654 judgments

The decision most relied on for assessee in default is Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India (54 Taxmann.com 200), cited in 702 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on assessee in default

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court

576

citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai

84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT

263

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.

373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court

199

citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.

140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court

172

citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT

345 ITR 288 · 2012 · High Court

164

citing judgments

A deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source if the recipient has already paid the income tax directly. The onus is on the deductor to prove that the recipient has paid the tax.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.

340 ITR 333 · 2012 · High Court

161

citing judgments

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.

325 ITR 148 · 2010 · High Court

155

citing judgments

Discounts offered to distributors under a tightly controlled relationship constitute commission and are subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing assessee in default

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT(International Taxation), Noida

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1258/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Shri Ganga Dhar panda

Section 40

ITAT) has held that, in respect of the aforesaid lease rent, the appellant-assessee was not deemed to be an assessee in default in terms of the first proviso to s. 201(1) of the Act. d) Therefore the appellant-assessee was entitled to be deemed as having deducted

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT(International Taxation), Noida

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1257/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Shri Ganga Dhar panda

Section 40

M/S Wayanad Dist. Co.Op Bank Ltd., Wayanad vs. ITO(TDS), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 961/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

maturity/payment to the depositor, credit/adjustment for the same ought to have been granted. The assessment of the whole amount of TDS as an assessee in default is clearly erroneous. D. Since the customers are numerous it was not possible to obtain Certificate in Form 26A. However, the TDS returns filed ... maturity of deposits. The AO therefore passed orders under Sections 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act making the assessee as an assessee in default for AY 2016-17 to 2019-20 and also levied interest on the tax demand. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed under Sections

M/S Wayanad Dist. Co.Op Bank Ltd., Wayanad vs. ITO(TDS), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 960/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

M/S Wayanad Dist. Co.Op Bank Ltd., Wayanad vs. ITO(TDS), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 959/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

M/S Wayanad Dist. Co.Op Bank Ltd., Wayanad vs. ITO(TDS), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 958/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 298/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year :2010-2011 2011 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Janapath, Bhubaneswar Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 9.5.2016 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0493/14-15 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 194Section 194JSection 197(1)Section 40

accordance with the provisions of chapter XVII- B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (l) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted ... paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident – (i) Has furnished his return of income under section 139, (ii) Has taken into account such

Johnson Watch Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-75(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12 Johnson Watch Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, L-21, Connaught Place, Circle-75(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj9807G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2020 Of The Cit(A)-38, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Order Of Ao In Respect Of Following Demands U/S 201(1) & U/S 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961:- Tds Demand Total Dlf Utilities Ambience Facilities Ambience Facilities Ltd. Management Private Services Private Limited Limited

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

source @10%, i.e., 194-1 of the Act. Backed by his aforesaid conviction the A.O had held the assessee as an assessee-in-default u/s.201(1) of the Act, for short deduction of tax at source @2%, i.e. U/S.194C instead of @10% u/s 194-1 of the Act. 12. Issue ... Observing, that payment of CAM charges were essentially a part of the rent, the AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default for short deduction of tax at source u/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. On appeal, it was observed by the Tribunal that the CAM charges

Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kota vs. Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Jadish (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

source on the payments u/s.194A, but as per provisions of Section 201(1), the appellant shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such payee (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such ... source u/s.194C on the payment of Rs.74,593/- made to Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. The AO treated the appellant deductor as assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source on the payment made to ITO vs. Zila Parishad the above entity and raised the demand u/s.201(1) Rs.1

Income Tax Officer, Kota vs. Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 15/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Jadish (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

Span Air Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO TDS Ward 51, Ghaziabad

The Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4434/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

however, discredited the claim of assessee holding that as deductees have no PAN details accordingly, appellant has been rightly held to be assessee in default for short deduction of tax. Further in regard to appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 it was also held that for availing the treaty benefit ... assessee had applied rate at lower level while the ld AO had applied higher rates as per Act considering appellant to be assessee in default. The order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Danisco India

Canon India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-73(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 504/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Unit Acit No.214 To 218, 2Nd Floor, Vs Circle – 73 (1) Narain Manzil, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaacc4175D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 194Section 194CSection 194I

firm belief that the tax should have been deducted at source u/s. 194I of the Act and treated the assessee in default and directed the assessee to pay the TDS amount of Rs.2434248/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 5. Before ... Observing, that payment of CAM charges were essentially a part of the rent, the AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default for short deduction of tax at source u/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. On appeal, it was observed by the Tribunal that the CAM charges

Government Polytechnic Education Society, Rohtak Haryana vs. ITO, TDS, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Jain, Sr.DR (Rotational Duty)

Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

definition if they fulfill its I.T.A. No.1850/Del/2021 5 requirement.” 7. The Co-ordinate Bench thus concluded that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default in terms of Section 201(1)/201(1A) where the right in the master exists to supervise and control the work done by the Guest

Salochna Devi L/H of Rakesh Koshik, Delhi vs. ITO Ward--37(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8593/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Salochna Devi, Vs Ito, L/H Of Rakesh Koshik, Ward-37(1), B-7/209, First Floor, Sector-4, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Bbrpk1918C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri N.S.Bhatnagar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2023

Section 133Section 142Section 147Section 159

alleged to have been served were available on file and wrongly presuming the services of these notices. She further erred in treating the assessee in default in complying with the notice u/s. 142 (2) issued to the deceased person. 5. That the learned CIT erred in law in confirming

Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-78(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 139Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

held that if the deductee has paid tax on the CAM charges received from the Assessee, then the Assessee cannot be treated as Assessee in default. 3 The learned Commissioner further, noticing from the form no. 26A filed by the Assessee, directed the AO under the proviso to Section ... taxes on the CAM charges received from the Assessee by filing return of income u/s 139, then the Assessee cannot be treated as Assessee in default and no further tax can be collected. Needless to mention that the Assessee shall provide necessary evidences such as Form

Pvr Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

In the result, in the aforesaid terms, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2864/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273BSection 274(1)

hence arguments of the Ld. AR on this account are rejected. Further, there is no requirement of treating the assessee as "assessee in default" u/s 201(1)/201(1A) before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271C since the proceedings of section 271C are totally independent. This view gets support from

ITO, TDS Ward 74(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Police, New Delhi

In the result appeals of revenue are disposed of

ITA 8064/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri J K Handa, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan Sr.DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to assessee that default u/s 201(1) of the Act cannot be fastened on a deductor if the amount has been included by the recipient in his income and tax thereon paid ... evidence brought before the AO by the assessee to established that the due tax deduct at source therefore assessee was rightly deemed as assessee in default with the meaning of section 201(1) and the assessee was rightly held liable to pay interest

ITO, TDS, Ward-74(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Police, New Delhi

In the result appeals of revenue are disposed of

ITA 8063/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri J K Handa, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan Sr.DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

Bhilwara Agro Auto Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ITO, TDS, Bhilwara

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/JODH/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 139Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 221

required by or under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax: Provided that any person responsible for collecting tax 92[in accordance with the provisions of sub-section ... lessee or on the amount debited to the account of the buyer or licensee or lessee shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such buyer or licensee or lessee— (i) has furnished his return of income under section

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Co. P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. JCIT, Range-74, New Delhi

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

ITA 3018/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)Section 40

that period of four years. 22. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Department came to know that the assessee was an assessee in default only in November, 1998 when a survey was conducted and it came to be known only then that when the assessee had not deducted