TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961 and in upholding the appellant as liable to pay Tax to the tune of Rs. 2,19,620/- including interest of Rs. 19,960/charged u/s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, without going into the records and totally ignoring the relevant case law and CBDT's Circular cited by your appellant. 2. The appellant further craves the leave to put in additional grounds of appeal, if at the time of hearing. During the course of hearing before us, it was submitted on behalf of the that there was dealy of one day in filing the appeal, that because of miscommunication between the office of the CA of the assessee and the assessee, the appeal got delayed by one day. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are condoning the delay. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s similar to the interest of Rs. 14,93,925/- paid/credited to BCB. He treated assessee as an A-I-D and held him liable to pay further tax of Rs. 2,19,620/- u/s. 201(1) including interest of Rs. 19,960/- u/s. 201(1A). 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority(FAA). It was submitted before him that it had borrowed money from the family members/relatives of the partners, that it had paid interest on the borrowed sums and deducted and paid tax as per the provision of the Act, that in two cases namely AAF and BCB Form No. 15G were received by it, that on basis of such forms tax was not deducted at the time of crediting the interest, that it was under bona fide belief that tax wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be said that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. (supra) was applicable. Finally, he upheld the order of the AO. 4. Before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) contended that the assessee was under bonafide belief that it had not to deduct tax at sources before making payment to two above referred parties, that both of them had filed form no. 15G. He referred to the submissions made by the assessee before the AO and the FAA. He relied upon the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. (supra). The Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the FAA. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. Before proceeding further, we would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 200 within the time prescribed under rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Section 201 further shows that the failure of such a person makes him an assessee in default, although he would not, but for the default, be an assessee in respect of the sum referred to in section 195 of the Act. It is his failure to discharge his statutory obligation that visits him with the liability of "an assessee in default". This liability is cast upon him under the aforesaid provisions not because of any order or notice of demand but because of the operation of the statute itself. This is quite unlike a regular assessment under which the tax becomes payable only upon service of a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act. As soon as such failure occurs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng such interest and it is not left to the individual assessee to decide the extent of compliance that it will make with regard to the obligation imposed by the statutory provision that the Tribunal was clearly in error in accepting the case pleaded for the assessee that it had no duty to deduct and pay tax at source on the ground that one of its sister concerns had filed a loss return and the other sister concern had claimed refund. The concern which had filed the loss' return was at the time of assessment found liable to pay tax and the concern which had claimed refund at the time of original assessment was found not entitled to the refund, though such refund was directed in appeal. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in cancelling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n at source are not concerned with the ultimate result of assessment. Besides, the deductors of tax at source are not supposed to step into the shoes of an AO, as an AO is not authorised to take over the role of a business while deciding the issue of incurring of an expenditure for running his business. Roles of both the parties are defined and nobody should cross the Laxman Rekha. The provisions of the Act envisage that wherever deductibility arises, the deductor may not deduct tax only in two conditions firstly, where the case falls under the purview of section 197A and secondly, where AO authorises him to do so by issuing a certificate u/s. 197 (read with Rule 28AA) on an application made by the payee/deductee. In no other circumstances ....