9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1926 - AT - Income TaxDemand u/s 201(1) and u/s 201(1A) - defects in Form No.15G and 15H - Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) - CIT-A remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same - HELD THAT - . As per section 251(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) may pass such order as he thinks fit. In other words, he can confirm, reduce, enhance, annul or remit the issue back to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. Since the impugned order under which the assessee is in appeal is not an assessment order or penalty order, the provisions empowers the CIT(A) to pass an order as he thinks fit. Therefore, the CIT(A) did not travel beyond the scope of section 251(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A) with regard to remitting the issue to the file of A.O. to give an opportunity to the assessee to produce Form No.15G / 15H collected before the due date from the deductees and grant due credit for the same. Whether CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the correct PAN No s of the deductees? - CIT(A) correctly directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the tax u/s. 201 of I.T. Act at the rate of 10% for those deductees, where the assessee furnished the PAN Nos. This direction of the CIT(A) is in the interest of justice and equity. Further, we make it clear that the assessee has to produce correct Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the deductee, so as to get corresponding credit. With these observations, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 201 and 201(1A) - assessee is treated as an assessee in default - assessee contented that there should be proceedings against the deductee/payee and the finding to be rendered by the revenue that the taxes are not recoverable from the deductees and only in such an eventuality, the assessee can be declared as an assessee in default - HELD THAT - Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS ought to have been deducted and duly paid the taxes on the same. The relevant amendment in section 201 introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012. In view of the above amendment, the burden is cast on the assessee to prove that the deductee / payee had duly paid the taxes on the income which ought to have been subjected to TDS by the assessee-deductor. In the instant cases, the relevant assessment years are 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, and the amended provision has application. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is rejected. TDS u/s 194A - Liability on the correct person who is responsible for the deduction of tax at source - so many managers who is actually responsible for the actual payment in firm - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the liability to pay taxes as per section 201 of the Act has been fastened on the assessee s firm and the managing partner, as its representative. For proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act, the liability to pay taxes is on the assessee who had failed to deduct tax at source. It has been correctly done so in the instant case. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee is also rejected. It is ordered accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the assessees' appeals. 2. Remanding the issue of curing defects in Form 15G and 15H. 3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Liability for deduction of tax at source under section 194A. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Assessees' Appeals: The appeals by the assessees were delayed by 23 days. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided in the affidavit by the Managing Partner of the assessee-firms and found that the delay was not due to any negligence on the part of the assessees. The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be heard on merits. 2. Remanding the Issue of Curing Defects in Form 15G and 15H: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to remit the issue of defects in Form 15G and 15H back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) had allowed the assessees to correct technical errors in these forms based on a precedent from the ITAT Cochin in the case of Shri Jacob Thomas. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, stating that defects in Form 15G/15H are curable unless they are unsigned, unverified, or created post the relevant financial year. The Tribunal also supported the CIT(A)’s directive to the AO to re-compute tax for deductees with valid PANs, emphasizing the need for the assessees to provide correct PANs to get corresponding credit. 3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act: The assessees contended that before being treated as 'assessees in default', the Revenue should have attempted to recover taxes from the deductees. They argued that this was a foundational requirement for the AO to pass an order under sections 201 and 201(1A). The Tribunal noted that the burden of proving that the deductees had paid taxes was on the assessees, as per the amendment to section 201 effective from 01.07.2012. Since the relevant assessment years were 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, the Tribunal rejected the assessees' contention, affirming the AO's jurisdiction. 4. Liability for Deduction of Tax at Source under Section 194A: The assessees argued that the AO failed to fix the liability on the correct person responsible for TDS, as the firm had multiple managers. This issue was not raised before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that the liability to pay taxes under section 201 was correctly fastened on the assessee-firm and its managing partner, dismissing this ground. Conclusion: - The appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed. - The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. - The cross objections filed by the assessees were dismissed. Order pronounced on February 18, 2019.
|
