Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 February, 2000
vs. Dy. CIT, Mahendra Sharaf vs. Dy. CIT (supra) and Mahavir Agency vs. ITO. It was also submitted that there is absolutely no motive or vested interest and deliberate attempt to evade the responsibilities under s. 197A. The learned counsel further submitted that provisions of s. 272A(2)(f) covers only a case where there is total failure on the part of the assessee to deliver the declarations in the prescribed Form No. 15H and would not cover within its ambit case of delayed submission of Form No. 15H. It was also submitted that provisions of s. 197A(1) prescribed that no deduction of tax at source under s. 194A shall be made if such person (the recipient of the interest) furnishes to the person responsible for paying any income of the nature referred to in s. 194A, a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that the tax is estimated on total income of the previous year in which such income is to be included in computing his total income will be nil. The said provision does not prescribe any time-limit for which the declarant payee has required to file Form No. 15H to the payer. It was also vehemently argued that assessee did not derive any benefit by not filing the declaration in Form No. 15H before the CIT. Since the alleged defaulter has not derived any gain as a result of such delay, thus, there was no motive which could be attributed on him and as such there is no loss to the Revenue on account of such delay or default. The assessee had duly furnished the required Form in 15H as and when these were received by the assessee-company from the broker, who collected the amounts of FDs, though delayed. The delay caused by the broker coupled with the fact that assessee did not derive any gain or benefit and Revenue did not suffer any loss constitute a good and sufficient cause as contemplated under s. 273B.