Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Punjab National Bank , Bhilwara vs Ito, Tds, Ajmer on 19 August, 2019
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE 'B' JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11
Punjab National Bank, cuke The ITO,
Sanganeri Gate, Ramdwara, Vs. TDS, Ajmer
Bhilwara
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHP02236D
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Written submission (None)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Karni Dan (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/08/2019
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 19/08/2019
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 05.04.2018 wherein the assessee has challenged the sustenance of order passed u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS amounting to Rs. 39,690/- and demand towards the interest amounting to Rs. 45,015/- raising total demand of Rs. 84,707/-.
2. The relevant facts and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) can be appreciated from para 4.3 of the ld CIT(A)'s order which reads as under:-
"4.3 I have gone through the order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submission carefully. It is seen that the AO has raised the demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) in respect interest paid by the appellant without deducting tax at source to following persons:ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018
Punjab National Bank, Bhilwara Vs. ITO, Ajmer S.No. Name ofcustomer/ PAN of the Interest paid/ TDS made TDS not Shortfall client customer/ credited during on the made on client the F.Y. 2009-
10 (if above Rs. interest, if interest
1,60,000/-)
any due to
Form No.
15G/H
1 Shree Ganesh Utsav AAFTS0809Q Rs. 1,90,988/- Rs. 95/- 15G Rs. 19,004/-
Praband and
Sewa
Samiti
2 Shanta Devi Sharma CXJPS9738P Rs. 2,99,318/- Rs. 9,246/- 15G Rs. 20,686/-
3 Badhir Bal Kalyan AAATB2316G Rs. 4,32,122/- 0 15G Rs. 43,212/-
Vikash Samiti Office
Total Rs. 9,22,428/- Rs. 9,341/- Rs. 82,902/-
There is no dispute about the fact 'that interest credited in the account of all the referred three persons was more than the threshold limit (Rs. 1,60,000/ Rs.
2,40,000 for A.Y. 2010-11) for filing return of income. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the specific provisions of Section 197A r.w.s. 194A and Column No. 16/17 of Part 1 of Form No. 15G / 15H, the appellant was required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment/ credit of interest to the three persons referred in the order passed by the AO. As the appellant had failed to deduct the tax as required u/s 194A on the interest paid to these persons, therefore, the action of the AO treating the appellant as "assessee in default" u/s 201(1) in respect of non deduction / short deduction of tax of Rs. 39,690/- and interest of Rs. 45,015/- (in respect of interest on such short deduction / non deduction) u/s 201(1A), is held to be valid and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 84,707/- cre,dited by the AO u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) is hereby confirmed."
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, in the written submissions filed with the Registry, the assessee bank has basically contended regarding non-deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 43,212/- to Shri Badhir Bal Kalyan Vikash Samiti. It was submitted that the said Samiti has duly furnished 2 ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018 Punjab National Bank, Bhilwara Vs. ITO, Ajmer the return of income u/s 139 and they have taken such income from the assessee's bank for computing its total income in its return of income and there will be nil tax liability since the said samiti is registered u/s 12A(a) of the Act. Further, support was drawn from the provision to section 201 introduced by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.07.2012 which reads as under:-
"Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident-
(i) has furnished his return of income under section 139;
(ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and
(iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed"
4. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the order passed by the AO u/s 201 read with section 201(1A) dated 24.03.2017, the AO has raised the total tax and interest demand of Rs. 84,707/- and the relevant finding reads as under:-
"Since the assessee deductor has furnished the copy of ITR of the above deductee at S.No. 3 showing that the interest income received from the assessee dedcutor/Bank has been declared in the return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 which is verifiable, interest is hereby charged from the date of interest paid/credited to the date of furnishing the return by such deductee.3 ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018
Punjab National Bank, Bhilwara Vs. ITO, Ajmer Since the assessee deductor has not furnished the copy of ITR of the above deductee in respect of S. No. 1 & 2 showing that the interest income received from the assessee deductor/Bank has been declared in the return of income for the AY 2010-11, interest is hereby charged from the date of interest paid/credited to the date. The total TDS and interest liability of the default/deductor is worked out as under:-
Section/ Name of Payment Rate of Short fall Default in Period for Interest Total Nature of the amount TDS of TDS respect of interest u/s 201 Intererst payment recipient short fall (1A) @ & tax of TDS 1% liability Shree Rs. 10% Rs. Rs. 96 Rs. Rs.
Ganesh 1,90,988/- 19,004/- 19,004 Months 18,244/- 37,248/-
Utsav
Praband
and Sewa
194-A Samiti,
Interest Shanta Rs. 10% Rs. Rs. 96 Rs. Rs.
on FDRs Devi 2,99,318/- 20,686/- 20,686/- Months 19,859/- 40,545/-
Sharma
Badhir Bal Rs. 10% Rs. - 16 Rs. Rs.
Kalyan 4,32,122/- 43,212/- Months 6,914/- 6,914/-
Vikash
Samiti
Office
Total Rs. Rs. Rs.
39,690/- 45,017/- 84,707/-
6. We therefore, find that as far as Shri Badhir Bal Kalyan Vikas Samiti is concerned, the AO has only raised the demand towards the interest from the date of payment of such interest or credit by the Bank to the date of furnishing of return of income by such samiti. Therefore, the contention of the assessee bank regarding the filing of tax return by such samiti and the fact that such interest income has been duly disclosed in the said return of income has 4 ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018 Punjab National Bank, Bhilwara Vs. ITO, Ajmer already been considered by the Assessing Officer and the basis the same, no tax demand towards TDS has been raised. The only demand in respect of such transaction with Samiti is regarding the interest amount of Rs. 6,914/- in respect of which we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer and the same is confirmed.
7. Regarding the other two transactions of interest payments without TDS to Shri Ganesh Utsav Praband and Sewa Samiti, and Smt Shanta Devi Sharma are concerned, no specific contentions have been raised by the assessee bank.
Further, there is nothing on record which suggests that they have included the interest receipt while filing their respective tax returns and have paid due taxes thereon. Therefore, the demand raised in respect of these transactions is hereby confirmed.
In the result, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/08/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 19/08/2019
*Ganesh Kr.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Punjab National Bank, Bhilwara
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, TDS, Ajmer
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.5 ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018
Punjab National Bank, Bhilwara Vs. ITO, Ajmer
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 251/Jodh/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 6