TDS default liability sustained where deductor failed to show payees had already paid tax; short delay condoned.

A short, bona fide delay in filing an appeal was condoned where the required documents could not be collected in time and no Revenue objection was raised. On the merits, liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for failure to deduct tax at source under sections 194C and 194J was sustained because the assessee did not show any infirmity in the order confirming the TDS default or establish that the payees had already offered the relevant receipts to tax. Reliance on a different order was distinguished on facts. The appeal was disposed of with the delay condoned, but the tax demand and interest liability upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 16-day delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the demand raised under section 201(1) and section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source under sections 194C and 194J was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the 16-day delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was explained as having occurred because the documents required for filing the appeal could not be collected within time. No objection was raised by the Revenue to the request for condonation, and the delay was treated as bona fide.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised under section 201(1) and section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source under sections 194C and 194J was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee failed to point out any infirmity in the appellate order confirming the TDS default. The material on record did not establish that the payees had already offered the receipts to tax so as to negate the liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The reliance placed on a different order was found distinguishable on facts, including the absence of comparable additional evidence.

Conclusion: The demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by condoning the delay, but the tax demand and interest liability for TDS default were sustained, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the deductor fails to rebut the finding of TDS default or to show that the payees have already discharged tax on the relevant income, liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) is sustainable; a bona fide short delay in filing an appeal may nevertheless be condoned.

---