BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR V. ACIT, DELHI

ITA 68/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Bank of India against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The appeals were related to the short deduction/non-deduction of TDS on interest payments made by the bank, which were deemed as the assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned based on the circumstances presented by the bank. The main legal contention revolved around the bank's responsibility to deduct TDS on interest payments exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, and whether the forms submitted (15G/15H) were valid under the circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36712 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KANODIYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; TDS; Application of stay
• Section: 201; 194A; 133(6); 201(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 17/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bank of India Barkat Nagar, 936/937 Kisan Marg, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT Faceless LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JPRB01809D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 68/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bank of India Barkat Nagar, 936/937 Kisan Marg, Jaipur cuke Vs. ACIT LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JPRB01809D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Ashok Kanodiya jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04/03/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These two appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short NFAC/ CIT(A) ] 2 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India for the assessment year 2012-13 both dated 14.09.2022. The said order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC arise as against the separate order dated 22.03.2019 and 29.03.2019 passed under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT/ITO, (TDS)- Jaipur [ for short AO ]. Since the issue raised in both the appeals were identical were heard together and are disposed of by a common order by taking the fact of the case in ITA no. 68/JP/2025 as lead case. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 782 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Subject: Filing of Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in ITA No. 68/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-13)-TAN: JPRBD01809 D Respected Sir/Madam, I, Mahendra Sattavan, Senior Manager, Bank of India, 936-937, Krishna Marg, Jaipur, respectfully submit this letter in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble SMC Bench dated 18/02/2025 in the matter of ITA No. 17/JPR/2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, filed by Bank of India, having TAN No.JPRBD01809 D. As per the said direction, I am hereby filing an affidavit seeking condonation of delay along with supporting documents. The delay in filing the appeal was due to non receipt of order passed by CIT APPEAL FACELESS. I humbly request the Hon'ble Tribunal to consider the genuine reasons for the delay and allow the condonation in the interest of justice. The following documents are enclosed for your kind perusal and necessary action: 1. Affidavit for Condonation of Delay 3 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India I request you to kindly take the same on record and oblige.” The affidavit filed by the branch manager reads as under: 4 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India The ld. AR of the assessee supporting the contention so raised submitted that in the Form no. 35 the email address was submitted of the Branch i.e. [e-mail] and considering the serve being sensitive the bulk or unknown mail goes into the spam and therefore, the same left attention to the incumbent at that time and therefore, ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice to the assessee. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 782 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 782 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. 5 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause and therefore the same is condoned. 5. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 68/JP/2025 on the following grounds; 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT Appeals was not justified while passing the order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting Rs. 53349/-. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case learned CIT Appeals was not justified while raising the demand amounting to Rs. 51215/- u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case learned CIT Appeal was not justified which confirming total demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) amounting Rs. 104564/-. 4. Kindly stay the demand 5. Assessee craves leave to add or alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is a public sector bank’s branch engaged in rendering the banking activities. The bank accepts deposits from customers and also provides loans and other banking services to its customers. Information u/s 133(6) was called for vide this office letter no. 3577 dated 26.02.2019 in 6 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India respect of the persons to whom bank had paid/ credited interest above Rs. 1,80,000/- on FDRs during the F.Y. 2011-12. In compliance to this, the assessee deductor filed its reply on 13.03.2019 vide its office letter dated 12.03.2019. On perusal of submission filed by the assessee/deductor, it is revealed that there were short deduction /non deduction of TDS was made. From the above information, it has gathered that the assessee deductor has made short deduction/Non deduction of TDS in the above cases. As per the provision of section 194A of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee has to deduct TDS @ 10% on the interest paid/ credited. A show cause notice No. 3712 dated 13.03.2019 was issued to the assessee-deductor asking them to show cause as to why it should not be treated as assessee in default for non/short deduction of TDS and applicable interest thereon as per provision of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act and requesting to furnish his reply with all supporting evidences on or before 18.03.2019. In compliance of the above show cause notice, assessee deductor filed its submission vide their letter dated 16.03.2019 on 18.03.2019 to the ld. AO contended that; \"that form No 15G/15H of the assesse/customers were received and due to which the TDS was not made in the above customers which are enclosed\" 7 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India 7. On perusal and verifying the submission filed by assessee deductor, ld. AO noted that the assessee/deductor has not submitted any supporting evidences for non deduction/short deduction of TDS on payment of interest on FDRs in the cases mentioned at Sr. No.05,06 & 09 of show cause notice dated 13.03.2019. As the case is being time barred on 31.03.2019 and hence ld. AO left with no option but to decide the case based on material available as per his records. Since the assessee deductor has not offered any satisfactory explanation on the default hence it could be presumed that the assessee has agreed with the facts mentioned in the show cause notice dated 13.03.2019 for the short / non deduction of tax at source. Thus, based on the these reasons the assessee was deemed to be in default u/s 201(1) for short deduction/Non deduction of TDS on interest paid to the customer and hence total demand of Rs. 1,04,564/ was raised u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act 1961 by an order dated 22.03.2019. 8. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “4. Findings: I have considered the grounds of appeals of the appellant and records. The adjudication on various grounds of appeal is in subsequent para. 8 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India 4.1 Ground Nos. 1 to 3: These grounds relate to the issue of additions made u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the IT Act 1961. 4.1.1 It is observed that appellant had just filed the Grounds of Appeal in Form-35 and had not submitted any documents to substantiate its claim in the grounds taken by it. It is further observed that the appellant has filed \"No\" in response to column 12 of Form-35, thereby mearing that no additional evidences have been filed by the appellant. Thus, the case has to be decided on the basis of facts mentioned in the Assessment Order. 4.1.2 It is observed that the appellant had made payments of interest to three entities exceeding the maximum threshold of taxable income without any declaration from the appellants and without/short deduction of TDS, Section 194A casts responsibility on the person (except Individual & HUF) paying any interest to resident of India, to deduct income tax (TDS) while paying/crediting any sum. Further Income Tax Rule, 1962 have provided the prescribed form 15G/15H for declaration be to be made by an individual or a person claiming certain receipts without deduction of tax (as per section 197(1A). In the Note 12 of form 15G of the income tax rules, it has been clearly stated that: \"The person responsible for paying the income referred to in column 16 of part I shall not accept the declaration where the amount of income of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 197A or the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year in which such income is to be included exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax. For deciding the eligibility, he is required to verify income or the aggregate amount of income, as the case may be, reported by the declarant in columns 16 and 18.\" Therefore, the primary responsibly is casted on the payer of interest to deduct TDS, if the amount paid is above the maximum threshold of taxable income. The payer had to determine only if the total amount paid by it is exceeding the maximum amount chargeable to tax, then it had to deduct TDS, unless the certificate of no deduction of TDS, issued by the income tax department, had been furnished by the payee. In these facts & circumstances of the case and given position of law, the appellant had to be considered as \"assessee in default\" for the tax w.r.t. these interest payments without lower deduction of TDS. The appellant had not submitted any details during the appellate proceedings to rebut the stand of the AO on this issue. 9 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India 4.1.3 In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO had correctly passed the order U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) w.r.t the three entities mentioned in the Assessment Order. The appellant had not submitted any further evidences to substantiate its claim in the various grounds of appeal inspite of sufficient opportunities given as enumerated above. Therefore, I have no material to interfere with the order of the AO and these grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 4.2 Ground No 4: The appellant had asked for stay of demand. The appellant had not submitted any explanation/documents for considering the stay of demand. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.3 Ground No 5. This ground is general in nature & does not require any separate adjudication. 5. In the result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 9. Aggrieved from the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. Apropos to the grounds raised ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. AO asked for the details of the parties who have submitted the form no. 15G/H and the interest paid were exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. The form no. 15G/H were collected at the beginning of the financial year whereas the branch manager may not have idea that the interest for the year will exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby there was default in 3 cases only and since this aspect of the matter handled by the computer generated software it left the attention of the incumbent branch manager. Considering that aspect of the matter ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the demand 10 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India be quashed. He alternative argued before us that the assessee be given an opportunity to have the alternative remedy by filling Form no. 27BA and thereby wanted to have one chance to plead their case before the ld. AO. 10. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authority. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the ld. AO based on the information collected u/s. 133(6) taken a view that the form no. 15G/H so submitted were not valid once the income chargeable to tax exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby, he found short deduction/non deduction of TDS to the extent of Rs. 53,349/- and also levied interest us/ 201(1A) of the Act for Rs. 51,215/-. The bench noted that the contention raised before us by the ld. AR of the assessee that the form no. 15G/H were collected in the beginning of the financial year and liability based on that form cannot be decided in the beginning of the financial year but in all the three case we note that the same were exceeded in the fourth quarter and therefore, as prayed the bench is of the considered view that the assessee-appellant be given a chance to have prove the alternative remedy by filling the Form no. 27BA for those assessee who have paid the tax and thereby there is no revenue loss to the exchequer. Considering that peculiar 11 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India aspect of the matter we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. AO who will consider the factual aspect of the matter as raised by the assessee after due verification of the facts and charge the correct default of the assessee in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the assessee. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during proceedings before the ld. AO. 12. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. AO independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 68/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The fact of the case in ITA No. 17/JP/2025 is similar to the case in ITA No. 68/JP/2025 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds raised by the assessee and the arguments of both the parties in ITA no. 17/JP/2025. Hence, the bench feels that the decision 12 ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025 Bank of India taken by us in ITA No. 68/JP/2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Bank of India in ITA No. 17/JP/2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 17/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/03/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Bank of India, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CIT Faceless/ACIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 17 & 68/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "