TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has made short deduction of TDS under s. 194-I and thereby taking action under s. 201(1A). (b) That without prejudice to above the order passed under s. 201(1A) is bad in law and illegal. (c) That without prejudice to above the appellant disputes the quantum and the rate of interests levied as excessive. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with TDS/TRO in holding the appellant in default in respect of TDS on the payments of rent and thereby creating a demand to the extent of Rs. 2,60,954. 4. That without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with TDS/TRO by holding that even if recipients of income have duly paid their taxes as per law the bank can still be held defaulter for short dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of Rs. 2,60,954 against the assessee. The detail of demand and the relevant period has been detailed at pp. 1-4 of the order under s. 201(1A) of the Act. The assessment order was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A) where it was partly allowed. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During arguments, we have heard Ms. Rimpy Chaudhary, learned chartered accountant for the assessee, and Smt. Preeti Garg, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 4. The gist of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the provisions of s. 194-I are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The payment was made through the draft, that there are two co-owners of the building, and the rental amount has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial years 1996-97 to 2003-04 and the AO created a demand of Rs. 2,60,954 on account of TDS and interest under s 201. Before going into much deliberation, we are supposed to see whether s. 194-I is applicable to the present facts of the case, which is as under: "The principal officer of an Indian company or a company which has made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends (including dividends on preference shares) within India, shall, before making any payment in cash or before issuing any cheque or warrant in respect of any dividend or before making any distribution or payment to a shareholder, who is resident in India of any dividend within the meaning of sub-cl. (a) or sub-cl. (b) or sub-cl. (c) or sub-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roviso is not applicable. The case of the assessee being co-ownership is to be determined as per s. 26 of the Act. Undisputedly, rent has been received through banking channel. On a specific query from the Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee has produced the statement of account from OBC for the period between 1st Jan., 2002 to 31st Oct., 2003. The account No. 4653 pertains to Sh. Shiv Charan, S/o Sh. Om Parkash and account No. 4654 pertains to Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Parkash. On perusal of these statements, the rent has been credited in the individual accounts on month-wise basis. The fact that the individual returns of both these persons. i.e., Sh. Shiv Charan and Sh. Vinod Kumar have been individually filed and accepted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or concocted one. The building is under the ownership of Sh. Shiv Charan and Sh. Vinod Kumar which has been given on rent to the assessee-bank. It is not the case that the payers and the payee are close relatives and some sham transactions might have been entered upon to avoid tax. During argument, the learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Kanoi Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT wherein it was held that failure to deduct tax or failure to pay after deduction, interest under s. 201(1)(a) of the Act is mandatory and automatic, which in our humble opinion, is not going to help the Revenue because the said section postulates liability to pay interest at the rate provided o....