TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in upholding the interest liability under the proviso to section 201(1A) of the Act i.e., from the date on which tax was deductible till the date of filling of the return by the deductee. While issuing such directions to the the AO, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate:- i) That Such direction is contrary to the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Projects (P) Ltd. (78 taxmann.com 263(Del)) where it has been held by High Court that since deduction of tax could not be made due to insistence of GNOIDA, the liability to pay the deduction of tax with interest till the date of judgment (16.02.2017) would be of GNOIDA and after that the liability to deduct tax w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Courts, held that assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the annual lease rent payment made to the Noida Authority. However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Project (India) (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (TDS)-II, (2017) 78 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi), the learned CIT(A) deleted the liability under section 201(1), but sustained the interest liability under section 201(1A) of the Act, observing as under: "4.11 In view of the letter received from NOIDA Authority the appellant had reasonable cause not to deduct TDS on payments made to NOIDA. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdingly, retained the interest liability for non-deduction of tax at source, to be paid by the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh projects (India) (P) Ltd (supra) has directed as under: "21. In view of the above conclusions, it is hereby directed that wherever amounts have been paid by the petitioners, towards TDS as a result of the coercive process used by the Revenue, the GNOIDA shall make appropriate orders to credit/reimburse such payments. In case payments are made through deposit, over and above the rental amounts paid to the GNOIDA, without TDS, the income tax authorities shall not pursue any coercive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). We find that in the instant case, the learned CIT(A) has deleted liability under section 201(1) of the Act but retained the interest liability under section 201(1A) of the Act. The first appellate authority in assessment year 2011- 12, has deleted the interest liability observing as under: "5(v). Thus, the directions given by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Projects (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) have also been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court and these directions are upheld on the ground of "adjusted equities". Considering the above position of tact and law. I am lead to concluded the appellant has not been considered to be liable for deduction of tax and NOIDA has been held to be under an obligat....