Tribunal allows delayed appeals, upholds jurisdiction under Income-tax Act. Correct tax deduction imposed on assessee-firm.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessees' appeals, allowing them to be heard on merits. It upheld the decision to remand the issue of curing defects in Form 15G and 15H back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The liability for deduction of tax at source under section 194A was held to be correctly imposed on the assessee-firm and its managing partner. Ultimately, the appeals by both parties were dismissed, along with the cross objections.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the assessees' appeals.
2. Remanding the issue of curing defects in Form 15G and 15H.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.
4. Liability for deduction of tax at source under section 194A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Assessees' Appeals:
The appeals by the assessees were delayed by 23 days. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided in the affidavit by the Managing Partner of the assessee-firms and found that the delay was not due to any negligence on the part of the assessees. The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be heard on merits.

2. Remanding the Issue of Curing Defects in Form 15G and 15H:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to remit the issue of defects in Form 15G and 15H back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) had allowed the assessees to correct technical errors in these forms based on a precedent from the ITAT Cochin in the case of Shri Jacob Thomas. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, stating that defects in Form 15G/15H are curable unless they are unsigned, unverified, or created post the relevant financial year. The Tribunal also supported the CIT(A)’s directive to the AO to re-compute tax for deductees with valid PANs, emphasizing the need for the assessees to provide correct PANs to get corresponding credit.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act:
The assessees contended that before being treated as 'assessees in default', the Revenue should have attempted to recover taxes from the deductees. They argued that this was a foundational requirement for the AO to pass an order under sections 201 and 201(1A). The Tribunal noted that the burden of proving that the deductees had paid taxes was on the assessees, as per the amendment to section 201 effective from 01.07.2012. Since the relevant assessment years were 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, the Tribunal rejected the assessees' contention, affirming the AO's jurisdiction.

4. Liability for Deduction of Tax at Source under Section 194A:
The assessees argued that the AO failed to fix the liability on the correct person responsible for TDS, as the firm had multiple managers. This issue was not raised before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that the liability to pay taxes under section 201 was correctly fastened on the assessee-firm and its managing partner, dismissing this ground.

Conclusion:
- The appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed.
- The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
- The cross objections filed by the assessees were dismissed.

Order pronounced on February 18, 2019.

---