TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....based upon identical facts involving the same assessee. In all the writ petitions separate but identical orders dated 28.3.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Varanasi and a common order dated 29.12.08 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Lucknow dismissing the three revisions arising there-from have been impugned. The petitioner is a drawing and disbursing Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India responsible for the payment of salary to its employees. He is obliged under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to deduct income tax at source from the estimated income of its employees under the head 'salaries' and to furnish return thereof under Section 206 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal income of its employees has acted in contravention of the instructions issued by the department on the subject. It was further held that the representative of the petitioner admitted the default in deducting tax at source and therefore, petitioner is liable to make good the short fall and to pay interest thereon. In these petitions basically only two points need consideration:- (i) Whether the petitioner in making deduction of tax at source could have allowed deductions under Section 80GGA to the employees of the LIC; and (ii) Whether the deduction on account of the donations made to the institutions for carrying rural development programmes were in contravention of the departmental instructions? Section 192 of the Act provides that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect. The assessing officer computes the net income chargeable to tax whereas the petitioner was only obliged to make an estimation of the income of the employees for the purposes of deducting tax at source which is subject to final assessment to be made by the assessing officer. In making the estimation of the income under the head salaries, the petitioner was required to act honestly, bonafidely and in just and proper manner. The petitioner has allowed allowance of the donation made by the employees under Section 80GGA of the Act on the basis of the certificates issued by the prescribed authority and as such it cannot be said that he had acted in a dishonest or unfair manner. At least, there is no finding to this effect by any of the autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....violated by the petitioner in giving allowance under Section 80GGA of the Act. In view of the fact that the above circulars nowhere prescribes any guidance for making deduction under Section 80GGA of the Act, the said circulars cannot be treated to have been violated or contravened by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit the department has taken a stand that the certificate issued to associations/institutions under Section 35CCA of the Act has been withdrawn subsequently with retrospective effect and as such the petitioner was not justified in giving the allowance to the employees. The said ground has not been taken by any of the authorities in passing the impugned orders. None of the impugned orders have non-suited the petitioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....institution recognized for integral rural development programme is permissible provided the institution is recognized and a certificate to that effect issued by the prescribed authority irrespective as to whether the said donation has been actually utilized for that purpose or not. In view of the aforesaid since the institution to which donations were made by the employees were recognized for rural development programme and were having valid certificate from the prescribed authority at the relevant time, the subsequent withdrawal would not effect the eligibility of the employees for getting benefit of the said donation in the computation of their income under the head salaries. As far as the acceptance of the default by the representative....