9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant Member And Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. D. R.; ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, dated 19.04.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive ground of appeal:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO refusing the cancel interest charged u/s 201 of the Act on the delay in deposit of TDS caused by negligence on the part of the Bank. 3. The assessee Company is a non-banking Finance Company, engaged in acceptance of inter-corporate deposits. During the Financial Year 2012-13, the assessee Company has accepted inter-corporate deposits to the tune of Rs. 363 crores upon which provision for interest was made for Rs. 31,62,69,531/- against which the TDS for Rs. 3,16,26,953/- was provided @ 10% u/s 194A of the Act. The assessee has deposited TDS amount on 31/07/2013 for Rs. 3,39,98,973/- which included an amount of Rs. 23,72,020/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendering the TDS has been dealt by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2153 to 2156/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide order dated 21/08/2020 wherein it is held as under:- 5. We have carefully considered the rival arguments and perused relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements as cited and relied upon during the course of hearing before us. After going through the cited order of this Tribunal in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (103 Taxmann.com 396 30/11/2018), we find that identical factual matrix as well as controversy has been dealt by the Tribunal and ultimately the issue has been decided in assessee's favor. The operative part of the decision, for convenience and ease of reference, could be extracted as follows: - 6. We have heard the authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. The issue involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass. We find that our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought by the assessee to adjudicate as to whether the CIT(A) is right in law and the facts of the case in treating the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdom had not even modified the Circular No. 261, dated 08.08.1979 which was issued prior to the Central Government Account (Receipt and Payments) Rules, 1983 . Be that as it may, the aforesaid 'benevolent circular' viz. Circular No. 261, dated 08.08.1979 issued by the CBDT on the date of tendering of the cheque by the assessee towards the amount of TDS to the government bank, did hold the ground and was thus binding on the revenue. We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the observations of the CIT(A), that as the Central Treasury Rules (Old Rules) had been rendered as redundant, therefore, the CBDT Circular No. 261, dated 08.08.1979 would therein follow and also has to be taken as having been rendered as otiose. 7. We shall now advert to certain judicial pronouncements which fortifies the claim of the ld. A.R that the assessee stood discharged of its liability of depositing the TDS on the date on which it had tendered the cheque with the government bank. We find that that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Kaplana Saraswathi (supra) has held that payment by cheque should be taken to be due payment, if the cheque is subsequently encashed in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cheque was deposited with a bank before the 7th day of the month following the month in which TDS was deducted, no interest could be charged. 8. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration before us in the backdrop of the facts and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. In terms of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the assessee had admittedly tendered the cheque with the bank i.e. State Bank of India, Branch: Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai well within the stipulated 'due date', therefore, it cannot be held as being in default for the delay on the part of the bank or the clearing house in making the remittance of the said amount to the Government Account. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee was to be treated as being in default for delay in deposit of the amount of TDS, thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the interest of Rs. 37,510/-levied by the A.O under Sec. 201(1A) of the Act. 9. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Upon perusal, we find that it was held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
