1989 (9) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Court Rules Assessee Liable for Tax Deduction on Interest Payments

The court held that the assessee was liable to deduct income-tax on interest paid to non-resident customers under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, as ... Interest Issues Involved:1. Liability of the assessee to deduct income-tax u/s 195.2. Liability to pay interest u/s 201(1A) when the recovery is time-barred.3. Duty of the assessee-bank to provide dates of payments to non-residents.4. Justification of the Tribunal in not quashing the Income-tax Officer's order and sending it back for further examination.Summary:Issue 1: Liability of the assessee to deduct income-tax u/s 195The court examined whether the assessee was liable to deduct income-tax on interest paid to non-resident customers u/s 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that it was an agent and thus not liable to deduct tax. The court held that the liability to deduct tax arises unless the Income-tax Officer treats the assessee as an agent and assesses it as a representative assessee, which had not occurred in this case. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct income-tax on the interest income. The court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.Issue 2: Liability to pay interest u/s 201(1A) when the recovery is time-barredThe assessee argued that the recovery of tax had become time-barred and thus no interest could be recovered. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that section 231 only bars the remedy of recovery but does not extinguish the right. The liability to pay interest u/s 201(1A) remains even if the tax is recovered by other means as per section 232. The court upheld this view, answering the question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, referencing its earlier judgment in the assessee's own case (Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. CIT).Issue 3: Duty of the assessee-bank to provide dates of payments to non-residentsThe Tribunal concluded that the liability u/s 195 arose from the actual dates of payment to the non-residents, not from the dates of credit. The Tribunal did not cancel the orders but allowed the assessee to prove the difference between the dates of credit and actual payment to reduce the interest liability. The assessee chose not to press this question, and thus, no answer was provided.Issue 4: Justification of the Tribunal in not quashing the Income-tax Officer's orderThe Tribunal was justified in not quashing the Income-tax Officer's order and instead directed the officer to ascertain cases where interest was paid but tax was not deducted and deposited. The court upheld this decision, answering the question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, consistent with its earlier judgment in the assessee's own case.Conclusion:The court answered questions 1, 2, and 4 in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, while no answer was given to question 3 as it was not pressed by the assessee. There was no order as to costs.