9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said interest was deemed to have been credited to the account of the respective payees as on 31st of March of the respective years. As such, the ITO invoked the provisions of s. 194A r/w ss. 201 and 201(1A). The ITO also observed that tax amounts of Rs. 9,81,266 and Rs. 13,18,205 were liable to be deducted at source from the said interest amounts debited in the assessee s books in the financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96. He further observed that these amounts had been paid to the Government Treasury on 23rd June, 1995 and 27th June, 1996, respectively. In this view of the matter, the ITO (TDS) invoked the provisions of s. 201(1A) and charged interest of Rs. 33,874 and Rs. 47,672 for alleged delay of 84 and 86 days respectively. 3. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty basis to Kolhapur Circle to enable to discharge or liability including TDS on interest on security deposits. 4. The learned CIT(A) while considering and accepting the plea of the assessee of reasonable cause and due date to be 30th June and not within a week of end of the financial year and non-granting of opportunity of being heard, deleted the penalties for both the years. 5. Aggrieved by this order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal and while relying upon the basis and reasoning as given by the ITO (TDS) Kolhapur it was contended for setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and restoring that of the ITO. It was further submitted that there was a delay in deduction of tax at source. Therefore, interest is chargeable being aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the same was paid late. Since provisions of charging of interest on late payment of TDS in Government account automatically and mandatorily attracts, further liability of interest under s. 201(1A), therefore, in my considered view, the order of the learned CIT(A) is not justified, especially in view of the lately decided case by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala Ors. (2001) 171 CTR (SC) 1 : (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), wherein Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court while interpreting the word shall in the context of interest chargeable under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C has held that the expression shall used in these sections is clear indication that the intention of legislature was to make the collecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
