9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act operate in under different fields of the Income Tax Act. There might not have been any loss to the revenue in terms of tax but the revenue have to be compensated for the delay in payment of taxes to the exchequer. The charging of interest under section 201(1A) since is mandatory therefore, no interference is required in the matter. - Decided against assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of income and proof of payment of taxes were filed. The assessee relied upon certain decisions in support of the contention that assessee is not liable for payment of taxes under section 201 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that it is admitted fact that at the time of making payment of consideration for the above mentioned property to non- residents of U.K., no tax was deducted at source as required to be deducted under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. As per provisions of Section 195 of the Act, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source at the specified rates from the sale consideration before making payment to the sellers i.e. NRI. It was, therefore, noted that assessee failed to deduct tax at sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I have heard the counsel. The action of the Assessing Officer is summed up, in his order, towards the end which is as follows :- Hindustan, Coca Cola. vs. CIT (2007) 178 Taxman 355 (SC) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income-lax ACL , 1962 should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charqe of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Hon'ble Court further held that this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the- deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uctible Amount of interest u/s 201(1A) (Rupees) Shri Krishan Lal 229457 14,11,2012 23.5.2008 126201/- Sohan Lal 229457 14.11.2012 23.05.2008 126201/- Mohan Lal 229457 14.11.2012 23.05.2008 126201/- 378604/- The assessee. therefore, is liable to pay interest u/s 201(1 A) which works out to ₹ 3.78,604/-. However, the assessee has 50% share in the property. Hence, the assessee is required to pay the 50% of the interest u/s 201(1A) amounting to ₹ 1,89,302/-. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, Bench-C in the case of Raymond limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2003) 86 JTD 791 (MUM), 'since the liability to tax is because of the operation of the statute itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola reported in 293 ITR 226, this does not absolve the assessee from the liability to pay interest u/s 20 1(1 A) of the Act from the date when the tax was deductible to the date when the tax was paid by the deductee or from the liability for penalty u/s 271C of the Income tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of tax so deductible from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax was actually paid." Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of DIT Intl Taxation vs. G E Packaged Power Inc. in ITA 352/2014, dated 12/01/2015, at Para 16 (last sentence of this para) has held that the "obligation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Act should be enforced afte r the tax deductor has satisfied to Officr-in-charge of the TDS that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However , this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act " 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V Elililly & Co. (India) P. Ltd. 312 ITR 225 (S.C) held as under : "The levy of interest under section 201(1A) is mandatory and the absence of liability for tax will not dilute the default. The liability of deducting tax at source is in the nature of a vicarious liability, which presupposes existence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
