9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong fixation of liability. It can only be seen as a demand made on the person who is managing the affairs of the firm, for and on behalf of all its partners. Such a demand does not in any way amount to a conclusion that the claim against the other partners has been given up, since the liability of the partners is joint and several. We do not find any perversity in the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. The questions raised in the appeal are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. - I. T. A. Nos. 209, 210, 212, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 230, 233 and 234 of 2019. - - - Dated:- 9-6-2020 - K. Vinod Chandran And T. R. Ravi JJ. For the Appellants : Harisankar V. Menon and Smt. Meera V. Menon , Advocates For the Respondent : Christopher Abraham , Standing Counsel for the Income-tax Department JUDGMENT T. R. RAVI J. - 1. Three different assessees, which are partnership firms, have filed the appeals against a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The orders relate to the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. A common question is raised in all these appeals and hence they are heard and disposed of together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed ? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague order in respect of liability of the appellant along with principal officer, partner and managing partner to deduct tax under section 194A ? (e) Are not the findings of the learned Tribunal perverse and against the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 6. The relevant portions of sections 194A and 201 are extracted below : 194A. Interest other than 'Interest on securities'.-(1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct Income-tax thereon at the rates in force. (2) [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992, with effect from June 1, 1992.] (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (i) where the amount of such income or, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 194A that the Legislature has carved out the cases in which such deduction need not be made. Admittedly, the case of the appellants does not come under any of the categories identified in sub-section (3). As such, the appellants cannot contend that they are not liable to deduct the tax at the time of payment of the interest income to its customers. A reading of section 201, again, clearly shows that the failure to deduct such tax will entail the consequence of such person being deemed to be an assessee-in-default in respect of such tax. The first proviso to section 201 was added by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from July 1, 2012. As per the proviso, a person who fails to deduct such tax shall not be deemed to be an assessee-in-default, if it satisfies the conditions stated in the proviso. As per the proviso, the payee in such cases ought to have furnished his return of income under section 139, taking into account such sum for computing income in such return of income, and, paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income. It is also provided that the assessee (deductor) should furnish a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form, as ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n without any such declaration by the Assessing Officer. 9. The counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (TDS) reported in [2012] 345 ITR 288 (All) ; [2012] 21 taxmann.com 489 (All) in support of his contention. It can be seen that the judgment was rendered in a case which relates to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The proviso to section 201 came into force only in 2012. As such, no reliance can be placed on the above judgment, since the statutory provision itself has undergone a change in the relevant assessment year and the section as it stood at the time action was taken against the appellants, created a fiction by deeming such persons who defaulted in deducting tax at the time of payment of interest, as assessee-in-default. The burden to prove that the payee-assessee had paid the tax, which the assessee-deductor failed to deduct was placed on the latter ; by production of a certificate from the accountant. The questions (a) to (c) are thus answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 10. The appellants have a further contention that the orders of the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
