9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /15G are required to be filed with the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. Under these circumstances, it is not clear as to how the Income-tax Officer (TDS) can reject those declarations furnished by the depositors. We notice that the tax authorities have not addressed these contentions also. Thus the Income- tax Officer (TDS) has passed the impugned orders without properly addressing the various contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, this matter requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Restore all the matters to the file of the Income-tax Officer (TDS) with the direction to examine all the issues afresh by duly considering various contentions urged by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. Nos. 92,93 &94/Coch/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2014 - S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN AND B.R.BASKARAN, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Radhesh Bhat, CA For the Respondent : Shri K.K. John, Sr. DR ORDER B. R. Baskaran (Accountant Member).- All these appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as provided in the Act/Rule and accordingly rejected contentions of the assessee. In the hands of both assessees, the Income-tax Officer held that they have failed to deduct tax at source from the payment of interest as per the provisions of section 194A of the Act. In the case of Mattanchery branch, the Income-tax Officer also observed that the assessee has also failed to remit TDS amount. Hence, the Income-tax Officer treated both the assessees as assessees-in-default in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and accordingly, raised the demand under section 201(1) of the Act and also charged interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, these assessees filed the appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the first appellate authority confirmed the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer. Aggrieved, these assessees have filed these appeals before us. 6. In the case of Mattancherry branch of Ernakulam District Co-op Bank Ltd., the Income-tax Officer has noticed that the assessee has failed to remit the tax deducted at source (TDS) from the interest. However, the learned authorised representative submitted that there is no such case of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that there was no requirement for the assessees to deduct tax at source from the interest payments under section 194A of the Act and hence the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating these assessees as assessees-in- default under section 201(1) of the Act. 7. The learned authorised representative further submitted that it is a fact that both the assessees have filed copies of Form 15G/15H to the Commissioner of Income-tax belatedly. The learned authorised representative further submitted that the Income-tax Act has prescribed separate consequences for not filing the Form 15H and Form 15G within the due date prescribed under Rule 29C(3) of the Income-tax Rules. He further submitted that the provisions of section 201 do not make any reference to such rules relating to filing of duplicate copies of Form 15H and Form 15G with the Commissioner of Income-tax. Accordingly he contended that the Income- tax Officer (TDS) was not right in law in considering the violation of rule 29C(3) for treating these assessees as assessees-in-default in terms of section 201(1) of the Act. 8. On the contrary, the learned Departmental representative submitted that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Officer has made vague observations about the defects without pointing out the actual defects. According to the learned authorised representative, the Income-tax Officer should have given an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects, if any, in the interest of natural justice, instead of rejecting them across the table. 10. Be that as it may, we notice that the Assessing Officer has observed in the case of Mattancherry branch that the said assessee has failed to remit the TDS amount. However, the order is silent about the quantum of amount that was failed to be remitted to the account of the Government. The order simply lists out the details of depositors, interest paid to them, dates of payment, the tax due and the interest charged under section 201(1A) of the Act. The contention of the learned authorised representative is that there was no failure on the part of the said assessee to remit any of the TDS amount. Thus, there is contradiction between the order passed by the Income-tax Officer and the submissions made before us. 11. The discussions made in the preceding paragraphs would show that the Income-tax Officer (TDS) has made generalised observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
