9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1222 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194A - interest payments where it exceeded the threshold limit - interest payments coveringjoint deposit holders - TDS liability u/s 201 and interest u/s 201(1)(1A) - HELD THAT - As seen from the order of Ld. the CIT(A), we observe that the Ld.CIT(A) examined the details and confirmed the amount to the extent of ₹ 68,24,522/- in respect of 162 cases. During the appeal hearing, for a query from the bench, the Ld.AR neither furnished the actual tax liability nor furnished the details. The case was posted for hearing in as many as 20 occasions and the A.R continuously taken the adjournment. The appeal was filed was way back on 03.05.2017 and the Ld.A.R. could not explain the mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). In the instant case, the Ld.AR could not bring any mistake of calculation of tax liability u/s 201 and 201(1A). We are unable to accept the contention of the Ld.AR that there was mistake in the tax calculation. From the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we observe that the Ld.CIT(A) has correctly calculated the TDS liability in respect of 162 cases and the assessee failed to show that there was mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Interest payments levied under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of ?68,24,522. 3. Non-submission of Form 15G and 15H. 4. Tax liability on joint deposit holders. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Grounds 1, 2, and 7 were addressed, while Grounds 3 to 6 were dismissed as not pressed during the appeal hearing. Issue 2: The primary issue revolved around interest payments amounting to ?68,24,522, levied under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The Assessing Officer (AO) found discrepancies in interest payments made by the assessee, leading to non-deduction of tax at source. The AO treated the assessee as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source and calculated the liability under sections 201 and 201(1A). Issue 3: The non-submission of Form 15G and 15H was also a point of contention, resulting in a tax liability of ?1,32,042 in the case of joint deposits as per Circular No. 256 of the Act. Issue 4: The crucial issue was the tax liability on joint deposit holders. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee after considering the clarification letter issued by the CBDT to the Indian Banks Association. The appeal before the Tribunal focused on the correctness of the tax liability calculation in respect of joint deposit holders. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the tax liability calculation for joint deposit holders, stating that no error was found in the order. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the tax liability calculation for joint deposit holders was upheld.
|
