Penalty u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) set aside; matter remanded for Form 26A/CA verification

ITAT set aside penalty u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A) and remanded the matter to AO for verification of Form 26A/CA certificate submitted as additional evidence showing recipients had offered the interest in their returns. If AO verifies recipients duly included the interest in their taxable income, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default and must be given relief. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an assessee can be held an assessee-in-default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS on interest payments where Form 15G/15H were filed late (minor/technical delay) but recipients have offered the interest in their returns.

2. Whether late filing of Form 15G/15H (beyond statutory submission date) deprives the payer of the exemption from TDS and mandates treatment as assessee-in-default, notwithstanding subsequent submission and evidence that recipients declared the income.

3. The extent of appellate power to condone delay in statutory forms versus the competence of the Board under section 119(2)(b) to condone such delay (as raised in the lower orders).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) where Form 15G/15H were filed late but recipients have declared the interest in their returns.

Legal framework: Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) create liability of a payer as an assessee-in-default for failure to deduct tax at source and prescribe interest for delay in payment of tax due to such non-deduction. Form 15G/15H are statutory declarations by recipients to justify non-deduction; Forms filed with the tax authorities within prescribed timelines are material to determine exemption from TDS liability. Form 26A (CA certificate) may be produced to show recipients offered the receipt in their returns.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on a prior decision which remanded facts to the Assessing Officer where Form 26A evidence showed recipients accounted for the interest in their returns, directing verification before denying relief. That decision was followed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether a substantive liability under sections 201(1)/201(1A) can be sustained when recipients have in fact included the interest in their taxable income. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional evidence (Form 26A) showing recipients offered the interest and held that such evidence requires verification at the AO level before confirming assessee-in-default treatment. The reasoning treats the substantive consequence (recipient has paid tax on the amount) as capable of negating the purpose of sections 201(1)/201(1A) - which is to secure tax on amounts actually chargeable to tax - even though there was a procedural lapse in timely filing of Form 15G/15H.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where recipients have offered the income in their returns (as evidenced and verified), the payer should not be treated as an assessee-in-default and appropriate relief must be granted; matter should be remanded to AO to verify the Form 26A/contents before final determination. Obiter - observations on the minor/technical nature of delay and its equitable weight are persuasive but ancillary to the binding remedial step (remand and verification).

Conclusions: The matter is set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify the CA certificate/Form 26A. If verification establishes that recipients paid tax on the interest, the AO is directed to relieve the payer from being treated as an assessee-in-default and grant corresponding relief.

Issue 2: Effect of late submission of Form 15G/15H on obligation to deduct TDS and the relevance of "minor/technical" delay.

Legal framework: Form 15G/15H must be filed by recipients within prescribed timeframes to enable non-deduction; late filing prima facie undermines the payer's entitlement to presume no TDS liability. Regulatory power to condone delays in statutory filings is vested in the Board (section 119(2)(b) noted by lower authority), not in the appellate authority's general condonation powers.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal accepted the lower authorities' legal correctness that CIT(A) cannot condone statutory delay in filing Forms 15G/15H - that power lies with the CBDT. That position was neither overruled nor distinguished; rather the Tribunal proceeded on that legal premise while addressing substantive tax consequences by remand.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recognized that the late submission of Form 15G/15H is a procedural non-compliance which, on strict reading, could justify treatment of the payer as an assessee-in-default. However, the Tribunal balanced the procedural defect against substantive evidence (Form 26A) that recipients declared the income; instead of immediately sustaining the default, it required verification of substantive taxability by the AO. The Tribunal thereby avoided mechanically sustaining penalty/interest where the objective tax had already been discharged by the recipients.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - late filing of Form 15G/15H does not automatically mandate treatement as assessee-in-default if independent, verifiable evidence shows the recipient has offered the income; the AO must verify such evidence before levy. Obiter - characterization of the delay as "minor/technical" is non-determinative and was not treated as a standalone ground for condonation.

Conclusions: While the statutory position on late filing remains intact (no power in CIT(A) to condone such delay), factual verification may result in relief; the AO must verify whether recipients actually included the income - if so, the payer cannot be held in default despite late filings.

Issue 3: Scope of appellate powers versus Board's power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in statutory filings.

Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) confers power on the Central Board of Direct Taxes to condone delays in complying with statutory requirements; appellate authorities lack express statutory power to condone such delays in forms required by the statute.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal accepted the reasoning of the CIT(A) and AO that condonation of statutory delays in the filing of Form 15G/15H is not within the appellate authority's competence and lies with the Board, reaffirming established administrative law principles.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the limitation on the CIT(A)'s powers and declined to treat the appellate forum as competent to regularize statutory filing delays. Nevertheless, the Tribunal exercised its adjudicatory role by remanding for factual verification of whether recipients had offered the income, thereby addressing the substantive tax effect without attempting to usurp the Board's condonation function.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - appellate authorities cannot condone statutory delays that the statute or Board exclusively addresses; however, factual inquiries that affect substantive liability (e.g., whether recipients declared income) remain within the AO's domain and can produce relief irrespective of condonation. Obiter - procedural observations on powers are explanatory rather than dispositive of the remand decision.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the principle that condonation of statutory form-filing delays is a Board competence, but directed that substantive evidence (Form 26A) be verified by the AO; if recipients declared the income, relief must be granted despite the absence of condonation.

Overall Disposition

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes by setting aside and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the CA certificate/Form 26A. If verification confirms that recipients/payees offered the interest income in their returns, the AO is to relieve the payer from being an assessee-in-default and grant appropriate relief; the Tribunal's directive constitutes the operative ratio of the decision.

---