9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited and such interest was to be paid by the assessee for not deducting the tax at source. Therefore, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the assessee is not liable to pay any interest in view of the decision of this Court in case of Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society [ 2001 (6) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Issue of applicability of the provision of Section 195 (2) of the Act being payment to non-resident is concerned, applying the decision of this Court in case of Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society (supra), ultimately the assessee was not held to be liable to deduct the tax than what is to be paid by the contractor and therefore, the second question has become academic and we decline to answer the same. Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as the Tribunal was justified in applying the ratio of decision of this Court in case of Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society (supra). - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1: Mr Dev D Patel For Mr Varun K.Patel (380 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. Sumber Mitra Jaya as per the decision of this Court in case of CIT v. Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society reported in 253 ITR 310 (Gujarat) and directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest on the amount of Rs.08.00 lakh which was deposited by the said deductee as self-assessment tax on 23rd December, 2003. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Dev Patel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the decision of this Court in case of Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society (supra) as the said decision is applicable when the deductee has deposited the entire amount and there is no tax liability in view of the tax to be deducted by the deductor. Learned advocate for the appellant therefore tried to distinguish the decision of this Court in the facts of the case to submit that the Tribunal could not have directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest on the amount of Rs.08.00 lakh which was paid by the deductee as self-assessment tax. It was submitted that there is default on part of the assessee as the assessee ought to have deducted the tax and interest is leviable for non-deduction of tax in time by the assessee as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest can be levied u/s.201 (1A) is Rs. 8,00,000/- in the case of the assessee. Hence, we direct the A O to calculate interest from the date of default at the applicable rate on amount of default upto the period ending on 23-12-2003. Further, the A O is directed to restrict the amount of default to Rs. 8,00,000/-. Hence, we modify the orders of the lower authorities and the A O is directed to recomputed the interest liability u/s.201 (1A) in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are partly allowed. 4.1 This Court in case of Rishikesh Apartments Cooperative Housing Society (supra), in similar facts, after taking into consideration the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act which provides for deduction of tax at source by way of tax from the person who has to make payment to the concerned person and as per the provisions of Section 199 of the Act, whenever any person who deducts tax before making payment to another person and pays the same to the Central Government, the tax which is to be paid by the payee of the said amount and thus the assessee was to pay the amount of tax on behalf of the contractor M/s. P.T. Sumber Mitra Jaya dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot help the Revenue for the reason that in the said case it was not known whether the person on whose behalf the tax was to be paid to the Revenue had in fact paid the tax payable by him. In the instant case, the contractor, viz., Ravi Builder, had admittedly paid the amount of tax payable by it and thus no loss of whatsoever nature had been caused to the Revenue on account of non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee. 12. From the legal provisions discussed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that in the instant case Ravi Builder, on whose behalf the tax was to be paid by the assessee, had duly paid its tax and was not required to pay any tax to the Revenue in respect of the income earned by it from the assessee. If the tax was duly paid and that too at the time when it had become due, it would not be proper on the part of the Revenue to levy any interest under Section 201 (1A) of the Act especially when Ravi Builder had paid more amount of tax by way of advance tax than what was payable by it. As the amount of tax payable by the contractor had already been paid by it and that too in excess of the amount which was payable by way of advance tax, in our opinion, the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
