Allahabad Bank, Ghaziabad V. ITO (TDS), Ghaziabad

ITA 6096/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8072 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK GAUTAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Non-deduction of tax; TDS
• Section: 133(6); 201(1); 201; 191; 194A; 73; 13

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6095/DEL/201 6 (A.Y 2014-15) & I.T.A. NO. 6096/DEL/201 6 (A.Y 2015-16) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) ALLAHABAD BANK WRIGHT GANJ BRANCH GHAZIABAD MRTA01074D (APPELLANT) VS ITO (TDS) GHAZIABAD (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 20/09/2016 PASSED BY CIT (A)-GHAZIABAD FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2014-15 & 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 6095/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2014-15) 1. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCOME-TAX DEMAND O UTSTANDING AGAINST THE PAYEE OR ANY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE PAYEE BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO VALID JURISDICTION U/S 201 (1) AND U/S 201(1A) APPELLANT BY SH. M. P. RASTOGI, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. ASHOK GAUTAM, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.03.2021 2 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), TO HOLD THE APPELLANT AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE RECOVERY OF AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT O N ACCOUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS, IS INVALID, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW . 2. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE U/S 201 OR 201(1 A) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME-TAX DEMAND CREATED AS A RESULT OF ORDER DATE D 29 TH FEBRUARY 2016, THEREBY TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IS A RBITRARY, AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TRE ATED THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) OF THE AC T IN RESPECT OF SUCH PAYEES WHO HAD FURNISHED FORM NO. 15G/15H OF THE AC T AND CONSEQUENTLY THE TDS DEMAND U/S 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INC LUDED SUCH ITEMS OF INTEREST ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND CONSEQUE NTLY THE TDS DEMAND, AS CREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS ARB ITRARY, UNJUST AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEALS) BOT H OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CREATED THE TDS DEMAND U/S 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH ITEMS OF INTEREST, WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED BY THE PAYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE INCOME-T AX RETURNS AND HAVE PAID THE INCOME- TAX THEREON AND ACCORDINGLY THE TD S DEMAND AS CREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY, UNJU ST AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. 5) THEABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITH OUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. I.T.A. NO. 6096/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2015-1 6) 3 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 1. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCOME-TAX DEMAND OU TSTANDING AGAINST THE PAYEE OR ANY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE PAYEE BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO VALID JURISDICTION U/S 201 (1) AND U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), TO HOLD THE APP ELLANT AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE RECOVERY OF AMOUNT DET ERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT O N ACCOUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS, IS INVALID, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW . 2. THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE U/S 201 OR 201( 1 A) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME-TAX DEMAND CREATED AS A RESULT OF ORDER DATE D 29 TH FEBRUARY 2016, THEREBY TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IS A RBITRARY, AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TR EATED THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) OF THE AC T IN RESPECT OF SUCH PAYEES WHO HAD FURNISHED FORM NO. 15G/15H OF THE AC T AND CONSEQUENTLY THE TDS DEMAND U/S 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE IN CLUDED SUCH ITEMS OF INTEREST ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE TDS DEMAND, AS CREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS ARBITRAIY, UNJ UST AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEA LS) BOTH OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CREATED THE TDS DEMAND U/S 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH ITEMS OF IN TEREST, WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED BY THE PAYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE INC OME-TAX RETURNS AND HAVE PAID THE INCOME-TAX THEREON AND ACCORDINGLY TH E TDS DEMAND AS CREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY, UNJU ST AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. 4 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 5) THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT AND WIT HOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 3. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, HENCE WE ARE TAK ING UP ITA NO. 6095/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AS THE LEAD C ASE. THE ASSESSEE IS A BANK, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN MERGED WITH INDIAN BANK, H AVING A BRANCH AT WRIGHT GANJ, GHAZIABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF ITS F INANCIAL BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEPOSITS ON WHICH THE INTEREST IS P AID. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), INTEREST ON TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM TIME TO TIME AND DEPOSITED WITH THE G OVERNMENT ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN SOME OF THE CASES, VARIOUS PERSONS HAVE FILED FORM NO. 15G/ 15H IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A O F THE ACT WHICH MAKES THEM ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE INTEREST WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS PRESCRIBED U/S 194A OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY MADE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE AO CAME TO KNOW THAT OUT OF THE PERSONS, WHO HAVE FILE D FORM NO. 15G/ 15H, ARE ENJOYING INTEREST MORE THAN THE TAXABLE LIMIT PRESC RIBED UNDER THE IT ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE BANK AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT ACCEPT FORM NO. 15G/15H AND THEN THEREAFTER, WITHOUT ISSUING A PROPER NOTICE U/ S 201 OF THE ACT, PASSED THE ORDER U/S 201 AND HELD THE BANK AS ASSESSEE IN DEFA ULT IN TERMS OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE PERSONS WHO WE RE ENJOYING INTEREST ON THEIR DEPOSITS MORE THAN THE TAXABLE LIMIT, THE LIST WHER EOF HAS BEEN GIVEN ITSELF IN THE COMBINED ORDER PASSED U/S 201/201(1A) OF THE AC T FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15., THEREBY ORDERING TO RECOVER T HE FOLLOWING DEMAND FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH FEBRUARY 2016: FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 AMOUNT OF TPS TO BE DEDUCTED INTERE ST U/S 201(1A) TOTAL RS.8,29,582/- RS. 1,90,804/- RS. 10 ,20,386/- FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 AMOUNT OF TPS TO BE DEDUCTED INTER EST U/S 201(1 A) TOTAL 5 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 RS 12,21,894/- RS.1,34,408/- RS.13,56,302/- 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER U/S 201/2019A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR HAS GIVEN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE SAME ARE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT FO R THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, A S OBSERVED AND EXPLAINED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WHICH IS A JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN 345 ITR 288 AT PAGES 335 ONWARDS, WHILE DEALING WITH THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, HELD THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 191 OF THE ACT READ WITH ITS EXPLANATION, THE PRIME RESPONSIBILITY IS OF THE REC IPIENT ASSESSEE TO PAY THE TAX DIRECTLY AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT POINTE D OUT THAT ANY TAX LIABILITY IS PENDING BEFORE THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEE, THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED BECAUSE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT IS A RECOVERY PROVISION. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OBSERVE D THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 191 OF THE ACT READ WITH ITS EXPLANATION AND THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY AND THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 201 CANNOT BE INTERPRETED INDEPENDENTLY KEEPING IN MIND THE PU RPOSE FOR WHICH SECTION 201 HAS BEEN ENACTED. SO BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS TO BRING ON RECORD THAT THE TAX DEM ANDS AGAINST THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEES ARE PENDING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY TH E SAID ASSESSEE DIRECTLY AND THUS THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT OF INVOKING THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH JURISDICTIONAL FACT, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 201 CANNOT BE INVOKED AND THE DEDUCTOR CANNOT BE TREATE D AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE SAME BRANCH, THE DELHI ITAT IN ITA NOS. 5992 T O 5994/DEL/2012 DATED 4 TH MARCH 2016, AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE JUR ISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, HAS QUASH ED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 6 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 OF THE ACT ON THE SIMILAR LINES. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2002-03 TO 2004-05, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE SAME BRANCH, THE DELHI ITAT IN ITA NOS. 5992 TO 5994/DEL/2012 DATED 4 TH MARCH 2016, AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, HAS QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 OF THE ACT ON THE S IMILAR LINES. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT, WHILE HOLDING SO, HAS ALSO REFER RED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALLAHABAD BANK (ALIGARH B RANCH), WHEREIN THE AGRA BENCH ALSO FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGARAN PRAKASHAN LTD. IN 345 ITR 288. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THOUGH THE AO MENTIONED THE NAME OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD SUBMITTED FORM NO. 15G/15H TO THE ALLAHABAD BANK, WRIGHT GANJ BRAN CH AND TO WHOM THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE BANK WITHOUT DEDUCTIO N OF TAX, BUT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ABOUT THE PENDENCY OF DEMAND AGAINST THE PAYEES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH JURISDICTIONAL FACT, THE AO CAN NOT TREAT THE DEDUCTOR AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN TERMS OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT. IN THE ORDER, THE AO HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THE FIGURE OF INTEREST PAID TO T HOSE VERY PERSONS SHOWS THAT THE RECIPIENT INCOME WOULD BE TAXABLE BECAUSE THE I NTEREST IS MORE THAN THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND ON SUCH BASIS THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED FORM 15G/15H MEANT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX. IT IS NOT O UT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE INTEREST FIGURE ITSELF IS NOT THE CRITERIA TO P ROVE THAT THE RECIPIENT INCOME IS TAXABLE OR NOT BECAUSE THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME ULT IMATELY DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM OF VARIOUS DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYE E AS AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW AND THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS NO MICROSCOPIC VISION TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEE AND HAS TO DEPEND UPON THE DECLARATION OF THE PAYEE TO DEDUCT OR NOT TO DEDUCT THE TAX. IN SUCH C IRCUMSTANCES, KEEPING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT AS WELL AS I N THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL FACT, THE ASSESSEE-BANK CANNOT BE TREATED IN DEFAUL T AS ALSO HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN EARLIER YEARS IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE-BANK ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201 OF THE ACT, WHI CH TOO INVOKED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ISSUANCE OF ANY PROPER NOTICE, DESERVES TO B E QUASHED. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS 7 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 FROM THE INTEREST PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT IS VERY EXCESSIVE BECAUSE NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT ( APPEALS) HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE INTEREST PAID TO CERTAIN PERSONS FRO M WHOM EITHER THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED OR THE INTEREST PAID WAS LESS THAN THE TAX ABLE LIMIT, THE DETAILS WHEREOF HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN HIS OR DER ITSELF. AS FAR AS THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT BY THE AO F ROM THE DATE OF DEDUCTIBILITY TILL THE DATE OF ITS ORDER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S 201(1A) IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND CAN BE CHARGED ONLY W HEN THE DEDUCTOR- ASSESSEE IS DECLARED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 (1) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAME IS LACKING AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AND AC CORDINGLY TILL THE DEDUCTOR BANK IS DECLARED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN-TERMS OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT, NO INTEREST U/S 201(1A) CAN BE CHARGED BECAUSE THE INT EREST CHARGED U/S 201(1A) IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. HOWEVER, WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO ABOVE, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 201(1A) IS VE RY EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE CHARGED FROM THE DATE OF DEDUCTIBILITY TO THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. IN THE CASE OF TDS, THE ACTUAL DATE OF PAYMENT IS THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAY EE PAID THE TAX DIRECTLY AS HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: I) 312 ITR 225 (S.C) CIT VS. ELI LILLY & CO. (INDIA ) PVT. LTD. II) 155 TAXMAN 447 (DEL) CIT VS. MAJESTIC HOTEL LTD . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS CHARGED THE TAX ARB ITRARILY WITHOUT FINDING OUT THE ACTUAL DATE OF PAYMENT BY THE RECIP IENT ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ALL THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE B ANK ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND A CHART SHOWING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THEIR PAN AND THE COMPILATION IS ATTACHE D HEREWITH. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(A) O F ORDER OF CIT(A). THE 8 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 LD. DR RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISION: ARIHANT INVEST VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-2, GUWAH ATI (ITAT, GUWAHATI) INCOME TAX APPEAL NO 73 OF 2012/27-01-201 5. 7. THE LD. AR IN REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT THE D EPARTMENT IS RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF GAUHATI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CA SE OF ARIHANT INVEST VS. ITO-TDS IN ITA NO. 73/2012 DATED 27 TH JANUARY 2015. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF GAUHATI BENCH ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE-BANK. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE- BANK IS GOVERNED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT O F ALLAHABAD WHO IS HAVING A SUPERIOR AUTHORITY THAN THE GAUHATI BENCH. ACCORDIN GLY, THE PRINCIPLE AS ENUNCIATED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGARAN PRAKASHAN LTD. IN 345 ITR 288 HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. AS FAR AS THE JU DGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT AS REFERRED BY THE GAUHATI BENCH REPORTED IN 245 ITR 13 IN CASE OF CIT VS. DHANALAKSHMY WEAVING WORKS IS CONCERNED, THE SA ME DEALS ONLY WITH THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTIBILITY OF TDS. THE KERALA HIGH COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELI LILLY AND CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAJESTIC HOTEL LTD. IN 155 TAXMAN 447. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ELI LILLY (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) IS COMPENSATORY IN NA TURE AND HAS TO BE CHARGED FROM THE DATE OF DEDUCTIBILITY TILL THE DATE OF ACT UAL PAYMENT AND IN THE CASE OF TDS, THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT IS THE DATE ON WHIC H THE TAX HAS BEEN PAID BY THE PAYEE DIRECTLY. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS IN RESPECT OF CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE PROVIDED FORM NO. 15G AND 15H OF THE ACT UNDER THE STATUTE AS PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE PROV IDED FORM NO. 15G/15H HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS THROUGH THESE FORMS THAT TDS SHOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED 9 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016 ON THEIR FDS/RESPECTIVE WITHDRAWALS. THE PRIME RES PONSIBILITY RELATING TO TDS DEDUCTION U/S 201 IS OF THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEE TO P AY THE TAX DIRECTLY ONCE THEY FILED FROM NO. 15G/15H AND ANY TAX LIABILITY WILL B E HELD AS PENDING IN RECIPIENT ASSESSEES CASES AND HENCE SECTION 201 OF THE ACT C ANNOT BE INVOKED AS IT IS A RECOVERY PROVISION AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR. THE DECISIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. AR ALSO REITERATES SIMILAR FACTS. BESIDES THIS, IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE SAME BRANCH, THE DELHI ITAT IN ITA NOS. 5992 TO 5994/DEL/2012 DATED 4 TH MARCH 2016, AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, HAS QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 OF THE ACT ON THE SIMILAR LINES. FURTHER, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND 2015-16 AL SO THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL AND NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURE WAS POINTED OUT BY LD . DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. SINCE, BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2014-15 AND 2015-16 ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, WE ARE ALLOWING BOTH THE APPEALS. 9. IN RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 30/03/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NOS. 6095 & 6096/DEL/2016