9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee could be held to be an assessee deemed to be in default u/s 201(1) and thereby cancelling the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Assessee Deemed to be in Default u/s 201(1) The Revenue challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the assessee, Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Limited, could not be deemed to be in default u/s 201(1) for not deducting tax at source on certain payments to employees. The Income-tax Officer (TDS) had found that payments such as vehicle allowance, cash canteen assistance, medical reimbursement, and others were made without proper reimbursement and accounting, thus violating section 192 of the Act. Consequently, the assessee was deemed to be in default for a tax amount of Rs. 2,36,45,731 and interest of Rs. 51,72,501 u/s 201(1A). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the tax liability but partly allowed the appeal regarding interest. The Tribunal, however, quashed the orders, noting that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the payments were not taxable based on past departmental actions and judicial decisions. The Tribunal found no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in law by not properly construing sections 192, 200, and 201 read with sections 15, 16, and 17 of the Act. It argued that the employer's failure to deduct tax at source automatically made them a deemed defaulter u/s 201(1), irrespective of their intention. The first part of section 201(1) imposes liability for tax and interest, while the second part, dealing with penalties, considers the employer's intention. Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the employer's liability to deduct tax depends on whether the payments are taxable. Since the payments were not taxable, there was no obligation to deduct tax. The assessee also highlighted that past departmental actions indicated that such payments were not subject to tax, reinforcing their bona fide belief. Court's Decision: The court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's finding of a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee was a factual determination, not subject to challenge u/s 260A. The court emphasized that the liability to pay tax ultimately rests with the employees, and the Tribunal did not err in its judgment. The appeals were dismissed without costs.
|
