AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short the "ITAT"), between the same parties, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, all these 03 tax appeals, filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the "Act of 1961"), are clubbed together, heard together and being decided by this common order on the following common substantial question of law framed separately in all these appeals by order of this Court dated 13.02.2025; "Whether the three authorities are concurrently justified in imposing the liability on the appellant to pay amount towards TDS on impugned transaction, treating him as 'assessee deemed to be in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....66,750/- Rs. 1,17,360/- TAXC-181-2024 2008-09 Rs .5,08,853/- Rs. 1,01,771/- 2.3 Feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 19.03.2010, passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant preferred 03 appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short the "CIT (Appeals)]. By order dated 11.02.2020, the CIT (Appeals) though held that the appellant is not liable to deduct TDS on Labour Charges and Transportation Charges and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer dated 19.03.2010 to that extent, but held appellant is liable to deduct TDS on interest payment qua finance charges paid to the NBFCs under Section 194A of the Act of 1961. Against which, the appellant preferred 03 separate appeals before the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, which has not been done in the present case and, on the same footing, the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned ITAT, Raipur have also erred in dismissing the appeals of the appellant. As such, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant to establish its case that taxes have been paid by the deductee/assessee as, in absence of which, the appellant has suffered great prejudice because heavy tax liability has been imposed/enforced on the appellant, which is impermissible in law. Hence, all the appeals are liable to the allowed. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Ami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion/Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29.01.1997 under Section 201 (1) of the Act of 1961 vis-a-vis Consequence of failure to deduct or pay tax, which reads as under: "The Board is of the view that no demand visualized under Section 201 (1) of the Income-Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in-charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee" 8. The aforesaid circular dated 29.01.1997, issued by the CBDT has also been noticed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2007) 163 Taxman 355 (SC), wherein at Para-10 it has been held as under: "10. Be that as it may, the circular No. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that taxes due on him have been paid by the deductee/assessee. Admittedly, in the instant case, in accordance with Section 194A of the Act of 1961 TDS have not been deducted on the interest/finance charges paid by the appellant to the NBFCs and the respondent-revenue has held the appellant as "assessee deemed to be in default" and, therefore, enforced demand under Section 201 of the Act of 1961. However, the Assessing Officer was required to afford opportunity to the appellant/tax-deductor to satisfy and establish that taxes have been paid by the deductee/assessee, as, in absence of which, the appellant/tax-deductor has failed to satisfy the Assessing Officer (Officer-In-Charge of TDS) by establishing that taxes have been paid by the deduct....