TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner in the background that there were certain deposits with the petitioner and he was required to deduct income-tax on the payment of interest on such deposits. Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), provides that as and when such tax is paid on deposits, tax is required to be deducted at source. Such deduction is waived where the recipient of interest, even after receiving the interest does not become a person, who is liable to pay tax and furnishes a Form No. 15H. This is the admitted position that the petitioner had paid interest to depositors. From such depositors Form No. 15H was not received by him for the financial year 1998-99 up to March 31, 1999. Section 201(1) of the Act re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....default. The relevant para. of the notice annexure 2 reads as under: "(b) although you had paid interest exceeding Rs.2,500 to various creditors and from whom you had not received Form No. 15H during the financial year 1998-99, yet you have not deducted tax at source." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of section 197A(1A) of the Act, no limitation is prescribed for submission of Form No. 15H. As per section 197(2) of the Act, the petitioner could deposit the form so received by the seventh day of the month next following the month in which the declaration is furnished to him. If the petitioner has received Form No. 15H on April 1, 1999, then, it is a mere technical default and no tax can be recovered from the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o in section 193 or section 194A or section 194K, as the case may be, a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that the tax on his estimated total income of the previous year in which such income is to be included in computing his total income will be nil." This is the admitted part of the case that until the end of the financial year 1998-99, form was not received by the petitioner. Until the petitioner receives Form No. 15H, he was under obligation to deduct the tax. Since, the obligation was not discharged by the petitioner, it was tantamount to a default. By the deeming clause under section 201(1) of the Act by such an act the petitioner was liable to be branded a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him. This notice was sufficient indication of the intention of the Department that the petitioner has been construed to be an assessee-in-default. After having received annexure 2, the petitioner has not joined issue. He has not cared to file the reply to this notice and thus has neglected to take steps provided in law. An assessee who neglects a lawful notice is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The lawful actions of the Department are required to be seen with responsibility by the taxpayers. If they chose to ignore the notice under the impression that the show cause was only for proposing penalty and aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the date of the credit of interest to the various persons. Thus, the Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Income-tax Officer (TDS), Hanumangarh, under section 201(1) of the Act and has upheld the demand under section 156 of the Act. In this background, the application of the petitioner under section 264 of the Act was rejected. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. What is not denied is that Form No. 15H was received by the petitioner on April 1, 1999. The interest was paid to various depositors for amount more than Rs.2,500 during the financial year 1998-99. No tax was deducted at source until March 31, 1999. Thus, in the financial year 1998-99, though the petitioner-firm credited interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing such an order is only enforcement of an incurred liability by the petitioner. The Commissioner also has committed no illegality in enforcing the demand incurred by the petitioner in passing order annexure 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that having received the form on April 1, 1999, it is only a technical default and, therefore, no order could have been passed against the petitioner shows the casual attitude of the petitioner. The argument cannot be sustained for the simple reason that if law provides for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone. The petitioner could have deducted the tax at source in the manner provided by the Act. Having violated the law, he has incurre....