2022 (9) TMI 404 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remits case for assessing reversal of provision on Convertible Debentures

Ozone Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle 2 (1), Bangalore.

The Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to verify the reversal of the provision made and the liability to pay interest on Compulsory ... TDS u/s 194A - liability to pay has been crystallized or not - Amount towards finance cost as interest accrued against Compulsory Convertible Debentures [CCDs] on which tax was not deducted - Default u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) - assessee submitted before the AO that provision for interest is reversed at the beginning of the following year before the due date for remittance of TDS and there was no liability to be discharged before the due date of payment of TDS - CIT(Appeals) rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the order of the AO - HELD THAT:- The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 795 - ITAT BANGALORE] has considered a scenario where no payment is required to be made and the entire amount of provision is reversed in the subsequent year and the applicability of TDS liability on the same. If the liability has not crystallized and no payment is required to be made against the provision, then there will be no liability to deduct tax at source against the provision made. We notice that the waiver letter that is submitted before us dated 9.10.2014 does not contain the details as to the period from when the interest cost is not chargeable and interest is kept in abeyance until when. We also see merit in the contention of the DR that the status of reversal and provision of interest in the subsequent financial year has to be substantiated factually. We remit this issue back to the AO with a direction to verify the reversal of the provision made as on 31.03.2012 and the status of liability to pay interest on the CCDs in subsequent periods and decide the allowability in the light of the decision in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra). Appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Treatment of the assessee as an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and levy of interest u/s. 201(1A).2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and time limitation.3. Interpretation of Section 201 of the Act and applicability of Section 193.4. Validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer.5. Consideration of facts and circumstances by the CIT(A).6. Assessment of the case by the Assessing Officer without proper jurisdiction.Analysis:1. The appeal raised concerns regarding the treatment of the assessee as an 'assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the levy of interest u/s. 201(1A). The Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee for non-deduction of tax on interest accrued against Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs). The assessee argued that the provision for interest was reversed before the due date for TDS remittance, and no liability existed. However, the Assessing Officer disregarded the submissions and proceeded to treat the assessee as an 'assessee in default' and imposed interest under section 201(1A).2. The issue of jurisdiction and time limitation was raised concerning the Assessing Officer's order. The appellant contended that the order was beyond a reasonable time period and lacked jurisdiction. The CIT(A) was criticized for dismissing the appeal without considering all facts and circumstances presented.3. Interpretation of Section 201 of the Act and the applicability of Section 193 were debated. The appellant argued that Section 201 does not impose a charge on the assessee but treats them as an 'assessee in default.' The Assessing Officer's order was challenged for not aligning with the provisions of Sec 191, and the relevance of Section 193 was questioned.4. The validity of the Assessing Officer's order was contested, claiming it was not in accordance with applicable laws, evidence, or the circumstances of the appellant's case. The appellant sought to alter or amend the grounds of appeal based on these contentions.5. The CIT(A) was accused of erring in dismissing the appeal without due consideration of the facts and circumstances presented. The appellant sought a fair hearing and requested the appeal to be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.6. The Assessing Officer's assessment without proper jurisdiction was highlighted as a ground of appeal. The appellant argued that the mandatory requirement for assuming jurisdiction over the case did not exist, questioning the validity of the assessment.In conclusion, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the reversal of the provision made and the liability to pay interest on CCDs in subsequent periods. The decision was based on the scenario where no payment was required against the provision, leading to no liability for TDS deduction. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of factual substantiation and proper assessment procedures.