9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Trivandrum dated 31/07/2018 and pertain to the assessment year 2009- 10. 2. There was a short delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit stating that the original order of the CIT(A) was received on 2nd August, 2018 and as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, the appeal should have been filed on 1st October, 2018, However, the appeal was filed on 15th October, 2018 due to the reason that the taxation department of the Bank was situated in Bangalore and to file an appeal before the Tribunal as per the Bank s policy it has to get approval from the Taxation Department. The original assessment order and the appellate order were sent to the department for approval. It was stated that there was change in the top executive of the Bank in the month of September and due to this change, the approval was delayed which was received only in the first week of October 2018 and the papers were submitted to the chartered accountant for preparatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short deduction of tax. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) agreed with the assessee that the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (293 ITR 226) wherein it was held that where no tax has been deducted or there is short fall in tax deducted but the deductee had paid the tax on income earned then no tax shall be recovered from the deductor. The CIT(A) observed that what is shown in the return filed by the said Corporation is the interest of ₹ 22,96,05,562/- received from fixed deposits and it was not known where this amount included the amount of ₹ 4,10,16,457/- claimed to have been paid by the assessee or not which is to be verified. According to the CIT(A), the assessee claim that the income of ₹ 2,29,60,562/- offered by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation was only for tax but not ₹ 4,10,16,457/- as originally claimed which needs to be looked into afresh. Since both the income offered and the tax paid by Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. against the interest received from the assessee was not clear, the CIT(A) directed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome on which short deduction of tax was made has been included in the total income and tax has been paid there on then the deductor should not be treated as an assessee in default. There was also a condition in the said judgment that the dedcutee assesee should have filed the return of income. It was also held by the Supreme Court that interest for short deduction under Section 201 should be paid from the first day of the assessment year till the date on which dedcutee assessee pays the tax thereon. It was submitted that during the hearing of the appeal, the details regarding the filing of returns by the deductee assessee were produced before the Commissioner(Appeals). However, the Commissioner(Appeals) after considering the details remanded the case back to the assessing officer with a direction to verify the details produced regarding the tax returns filed by the deductee assessee and give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola supra. The CIT(A) however upheld the interest charged u/s 201 (1A)of the Income Tax Act based on the decision of Kerala High Court in CIT vs Dhanalekshmi Weaving Works(245!TR 13) in which the High Court held Interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 2009 to 31st March 2009). It was submitted that the assessing officer in the original assessment order had charged interest from the first day of the assessment year till the date of passing of order (1st April 2009 to 31st March 2015) which is against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola supra. However, it was submitted that the CIT(A) upheld the interest charged under Section 201(1A) based on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Dhanlekshmi Weaving Mills supra but failed in quantifying the interest to be charged. It was submitted that even in the case of Hindustan Coco cola supra, the Supreme Court had held that interest should be charged under section 201(1A) but held that it should be for the period from the first day of the assessment year till the date of payment of tax by the deductee assessee. The Supreme Court had in para 10 of the judgment in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola supra clearly held that interest should be charged till the date of payment of tax by the dedcutee assessee. To quote Be that as it may, the Circular No 275/201/95-ITB issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
