9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 194A prior to its amendment in 1987 regarding the obligation to deduct tax on interest payments and the consequences of failure to do so. Analysis: The case involved a petitioner-company engaged in various financial activities, including borrowing money and issuing bonds with interest payable. The petitioner made provisions for interest liability without deducting tax at source, leading to a notice from the Assessing Officer for non-compliance with section 194A. The main contention was whether the obligation to deduct tax at source applies when interest is credited to an "interest payable account" without specific credit to individual payee accounts. The petitioner argued that the unamended provision required tax deduction only when income was credited to the payee's account or paid in cash, not for general entries like the interest payable account. However, the Revenue contended that any crediting of interest, even to a general account, triggers the tax deduction obligation. They relied on an Explanation inserted in 1987, stating that any income credited to an account, including interest payable, should be deemed as credited to the payee's account for tax deduction purposes. The court analyzed the language of the unamended section 194A and the subsequent Explanation. They concluded that prior to the 1987 amendment, mere crediting of interest to a general account without specific payee acknowledgment did not necessitate tax deduction. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in requiring direct credit to the payee's account for tax obligations. Referring to similar decisions by other High Courts, the court upheld the interpretation that the Explanation inserted in 1987 was not retrospective and did not alter the original provision's meaning. They rejected the Revenue's argument that general entries sufficed for tax deduction, emphasizing the importance of specific payee acknowledgment for tax compliance. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the notice for non-deduction of tax, and held that prior to the 1987 amendment, no tax deduction obligation arose for entries in the interest payable account without specific payee credits. The court also deemed Circular No. 288, dated December 22, 1980, inconsistent with the true interpretation of section 194A. In conclusion, the court clarified the interpretation of section 194A before the 1987 amendment, emphasizing the requirement for direct crediting to the payee's account for tax deduction obligations and rejecting the notion that general entries sufficed for tax compliance.
|
