9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 996 - AT - Income TaxTDS liability - delay in depositing tds - Held that - Delay in depositing the cannot be attributed to the assessee as the assessee had sufficient funds to deposit tax and he also secured ID and password to make online payment of TDS. However, the same could not be activated at the end of the bank, despite several requests by the assessee, hence the tax could not be deposited on or before 30.9.2008 as per provisions of the Act. We are satisfied that despite of all possible and sincere efforts on the part of the assessee, the delay of three days occurred which cannot be attributed or alleged against the assessee for making disallowance of the impugned amount. Thus the disallowance is demolished and the A.O is directed to allow the claim of the assessee in this regard. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and factual correctness of the CIT(A)'s order dated 15.4.2011. 2. Justification for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 due to delayed TDS deposit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Legality and Factual Correctness of the CIT(A)'s Order The appellant challenged the order of the CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi, dated 15/04/2011 for AY 2008-09, asserting it was "bad in law and on facts." The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal on merits, but the order was recalled for reconsideration. Issue 2: Disallowance Under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The main contention was the disallowance of ?58,86,151/- under Section 40(a)(ia) due to the late deposit of TDS. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by a technical change in the method of depositing TDS, which was beyond their control. The appellant had transitioned to electronic payment of tax as mandated from 1.4.2008 but faced issues with the activation of online banking credentials from ICICI Bank, despite having sufficient funds and making several requests. The TDS was eventually deposited on 3.10.2008 through SBI, after bank holidays on 1.10.2008 and 2.10.2008. Arguments by the Assessee: The appellant emphasized that the delay was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond their control, highlighting the bonafide efforts made to deposit TDS on time. They cited several judicial precedents to support their claim of 'reasonable cause' for the delay, including: - Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 0745 - Escorts Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 468 (Del) - SC Krishnaswamy S. Pd. V. Union of India 281 ITR 305 (2006) - Life Insurance Corporation of India 219 ITR 410 (1996) - ACIT v. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. (Hyd) 56 ITD 164 - ACIT v. Sri. Ramachandra 128 TTJ 408 (2010) (ITAT Chennai) - Jagdish Malpani v. ACIT 94 TTJ 321 (ITAT Indore) Arguments by the Revenue: The Revenue countered that the TDS was actually deposited on 7.10.2008 by cheque, not 3.10.2008, and argued that the delay did not demonstrate bonafide intent. They also mentioned that only the CBDT could condone such delays under Section 119(2) of the Act. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the cheque for TDS was indeed deposited on 3.10.2008, delayed by just three days. They acknowledged the appellant's efforts to secure online banking credentials and the unavoidable delays caused by bank holidays. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was due to a system failure on the bank's part, not the appellant's fault. They referenced the legal maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform) and supported the appellant's claim of reasonable cause for the delay. Supporting Judgments: The Tribunal cited several judgments to reinforce their decision: - Escorts Ltd Vs. CIT, emphasizing that law does not compel impossible acts. - ACIT Vs. Shri Ram Chandra, highlighting that legal impossibilities should be considered. - Jagdish Malpani Vs. ACIT, illustrating that delays beyond control should be accommodated. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the delay in depositing TDS was beyond the appellant's control and demonstrated bonafide efforts. They directed the A.O. to allow the appellant's claim, thus demolishing the disallowance. Result: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2016.
|
