2011 (11) TMI 822 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant not liable for TDS: Tribunal's ruling on tax dispute

John Deere Equipments P. Ltd., (Formerly known as L & T John Deere P. Ltd) Versus Income-tax Officer, (TDS) -2, Pune

John Deere Equipments P. Ltd., (Formerly known as L & T John Deere P. Ltd) Versus Income-tax Officer, (TDS) -2, Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant company is an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1) for failing to deduct TDS u/s 194A.2. Whether the appellant company is liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) for the delay in deduction of tax at source.3. Whether the tax on the impugned income has already been paid by the payee, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (LT), and hence, the appellant company should not be held liable for TDS and interest.Summary:Issue 1: Assessee in Default u/s 201(1)The primary controversy revolves around the Revenue's stand that the appellant company is an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1) for failing to deduct TDS u/s 194A on amounts paid to LT. The appellant argued that the impugned amount was not in the nature of interest but a premium or discount, and hence, not liable for TDS u/s 194A. The Tribunal noted that if the taxes on the impugned income have been paid by the payee, LT, the appellant cannot be treated as an assessee in default, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. and the CBDT Circular No 275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.1.1997.Issue 2: Liability to Pay Interest u/s 201(1A)The appellant contended that since LT had already paid the taxes on the impugned income, the liability to pay interest u/s 201(1A) does not arise. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the chargeability of interest, if any, in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act, considering the date when the relevant assessments were finalized.Issue 3: Payment of Tax by the PayeeThe appellant provided evidence that LT had paid taxes on the impugned income in the assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03. The Tribunal found that the taxes on the impugned sums had been recovered from LT, and therefore, the appellant cannot be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1). The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the chargeability of interest u/s 201(1A) and directed that the appellant should not be held liable for TDS and interest if the taxes have already been paid by LT.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that the appellant cannot be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the chargeability of interest u/s 201(1A). The other aspect of whether the appellant is liable to deduct tax at source on such payment within the meaning of section 194A was left open.