TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4A. 2. That during the relevant period of time, the assessee bank had no documentary evidence in the form of Lower Deduction Certificate u/s 197 etc. on the basis of which the bank came ot the conclusion that there was no requirement of deduction of tax, as required u/s 194A of the I.T. Act. 1961. 3. After hearing both the parties we find that a survey / TDS inspection was conducted in the premises of assessee and it was noted that interest has been paid to the following parties: (i) Director, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh (Salary Account) (ii) Director, PEC University of Technology (PF Trust Fund) (iii) PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust) (iv) Punjab Infrastructure Development Board The AO ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has been notified under section 10(23C)(iv) so the total income was exempted. In case of three individuals whom commission was paid for daily collection the same was treated as salary income and tax deducted accordingly, in view of the clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It was further submitted that if no tax was due then interest could not be charged and in this regard Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in case of M/s. Q.C. Residential (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 1286/Chd/2012. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the issue and held that tax was not deductible in respect of all these parties including individuals except in case of PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust) and the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A) and confirm the same. 10. In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 14/Chd/2015 11. In this appeal assessee has raised following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice: That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to negate the contention of the appellant that principles of natural justice were grossly violated by the AO. No reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of AO treating the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson. 5.3 In view of the above discussion, 'PR' is to be treated as 'assessee in default' in respect of the payment made to PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust). Therefore, the demand created u/s 201(1)/1A) of Rs. 12,56,023/- in respect of interest payment to PEC University of Technology (Pension Fund Trust) is confirmed and the appellant gets relief of rest of the demand of Rs. 62,46,541/-(75,02,564 - 12,56,023). 12. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the University has not provided him any information to the fact whether Pension fund was granted approval or not. However still he submitted that tax was not deductible because there were no primary liability on the part of PEC University of Technology (Pens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income-tax subject to regular assessment. Thus from above it is clear that normally a person making payment is required to deduct the tax as per the provisions of the Act because this is a tentative deduction. The case of Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) is also distinguishable on facts because in that case the issue was whether trade discount allowed by the publisher of news paper to advertising agency was not a discount and whether tax is deductible at source on such discount and it was held that no tax was deductible under section 194H therefore this case provides no assistance to the case of the assessee. 15. In the case before us the fact remains that pension fund trust of the PEC University of Technology has not been approve....