9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 334 - HC - Income TaxTDS on interest/finance charges paid to the NBFCs by virtue of Section 194A - HELD THAT - A careful reading of the judgment of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. 2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT would show that it has categorically been made clear that demand visualized under Section 201 (1) of the Act of 1961 should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the Officer-In-Charge of TDS that taxes due on him have been paid by the deductee-assessee. In the present case by virtue of Section 194A of the Act of 1961 the appellant was required to deduct TDS on payment of interest/finance charges made to the NBFCs but admittedly the same has not been deducted by the appellant herein and consequently the circular issued by the CBDT dated 29.01.1997 would come into play where it has been clearly held that demand visualized u/s 201 (1) should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the Officer-In-Charge of TDS (Assessing Officer) that taxes due on him have been paid by the deductee/assessee. Admittedly in the instant case in accordance with Section 194A of the Act of 1961 TDS have not been deducted on the interest/finance charges paid by the appellant to the NBFCs and the respondent-revenue has held the appellant as assessee deemed to be in default and therefore enforced demand u/s 201 of the Act of 1961. AO was required to afford opportunity to the appellant/tax-deductor to satisfy and establish that taxes have been paid by the deductee/assessee as in absence of which the appellant/tax-deductor has failed to satisfy the AO (Officer-In-Charge of TDS) by establishing that taxes have been paid by the deductee/assessee more particularly when the appellant/tax-deductor and NBFCs/tax-deductee/ assessee are two different entites/personalities. As such the AO ought to have given opportunity to the appellant before imposing liability u/s 201 (1) which in the present case has not been done and straightaway liability sought to have been imposed upon the appellant by the Assessing Officer and same has also been affirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT Raipur. Thus orders to the extent that the appellant failed to deduct TDS on interest/finance charges paid to the NBFCs u/s 194A are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the AO for fresh consideration on the point whether the assessee/tax-deductee has paid tax on the amount received by them by incorporating the receipts in their books of accounts after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the three authorities were justified in imposing the liability on the appellant to pay the amount towards TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) on the impugned transactions, treating the appellant as an 'assessee deemed to be in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This issue revolves around the appellant's failure to deduct TDS on interest/finance charges paid to Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) and whether the appellant was provided a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that taxes were paid by the deductee/assessee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The case hinges on the application of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the deduction of TDS on interest payments other than those on securities. Additionally, Section 201 outlines the consequences of failure to deduct or pay tax, deeming the defaulter as an 'assessee deemed to be in default.' The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29.01.1997, provides guidance that no demand under Section 201 should be enforced if the tax deductor proves that taxes have been paid by the deductee. The Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax is a pivotal precedent, clarifying that demands under Section 201 should not be enforced if the tax deductor satisfies the officer that taxes have been paid by the deductee. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court examined whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that taxes had already been paid by the deductee, as required by the CBDT circular and the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The Court found that the appellant was not afforded such an opportunity, which is a necessary step before enforcing the demand under Section 201. Key Evidence and Findings The appellant failed to deduct TDS on interest/finance charges paid to NBFCs for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The authorities, including the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals), and ITAT, held the appellant liable without allowing the appellant to prove that the deductee had paid the taxes. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the legal framework of Section 194A and Section 201, along with the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's interpretation, to the facts of the case. The Court determined that the appellant should have been given the opportunity to demonstrate that the taxes were paid by the deductee before being held liable under Section 201. Treatment of Competing Arguments The appellant argued that they were not given a chance to prove that the taxes were paid by the deductee, which led to an unjust imposition of liability. The respondent-revenue authority contended that it was the appellant's responsibility to ensure TDS was deducted as per Section 194A. The Court sided with the appellant, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to the CBDT circular. Conclusions The Court concluded that the authorities erred in not providing the appellant with an opportunity to prove that the taxes were paid by the deductee. Thus, the orders imposing liability on the appellant were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with instructions to provide the appellant a fair hearing. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the demand under Section 201 should not be enforced without giving the tax deductor an opportunity to prove that taxes have been paid by the deductee, as established by the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Core principles established: The principle that demands under Section 201 should be enforced only after ensuring procedural fairness and allowing the tax deductor to demonstrate that taxes have been paid by the deductee was reinforced. Final determinations on each issue: The orders dated 23.12.2009, 11.02.2020, and 26.12.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals), and ITAT, respectively, were set aside to the extent that the appellant failed to deduct TDS on interest/finance charges paid to NBFCs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation, with instructions to expedite the process and provide a fair hearing to the appellant. The liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) remains unaffected until the taxes are paid by the deductee.
|
