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

ITA 716/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64083 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH MEHTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 12A; 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 715 &716 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) & ITA NOS. 767 TO 770 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) ALLAHABAD BANK, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) , SCO 12A, SECTOR 11, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AACCA8464F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI NEERAJ JAIN & YOGESH MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.12.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THIS BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE SAME ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 19.4.2012 & 22.5.2012 RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). 2. ALL THE ABOVE SAID SIX APPEALS RELATING TO THE S AME ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE ISSUE IN ITA 2 NOS.767 TO 770/CHD/2012 NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST . ITA NO.767/CHD/2012 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.767/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PA SSING THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD, CI T (A) BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) AND LD. A.O. ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)/A.O. BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1). 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A). 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETI NG THE DEMAND OF INTEREST U/S. 201 (1A) WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY TH E LD. A. O. TWICE I.E. ONCE IN THE ORDER U/S. 201 (1A) FOR WHOL E OF THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND AGAIN BY MAKING ORDER U/S 201 (1A) FOR EACH QUARTER SEPARATELY FOR THE F.Y.2007-08. 7. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELET ING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE CHEQUE FOR DEPOSIT OF TDS HAS B EEN TENDERED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BUT THE SAME WERE CLEARED AF TER THE PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED GIVING THE S ET OFF OF RS. 17,027/- AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 (1A) AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,027/- HAS BEEN PAID IN EXCESS IN QUARTER FOUR OF F.Y. 2007-08 THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 008579 DT. 6.5.2008. 9. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DIS PUTES THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND OF TAX & INTEREST. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION O R AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 5. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN REL ATION TO THE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT DEPOSITING THE SAME WITHIN THE TIME FRAMED ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT AND ALSO SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND 3 CONSEQUENT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1 A) OF THE ACT. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS PUBLIC SECTOR BANK AND WAS FILING E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT IN FO RM NO.26Q IN RELATION TO THE INTEREST PAID AND TAX DEDUCTED/DEDU CTIBLE ON SUCH INTEREST PAID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD IN RELATION TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 IN THE FIRST QUARTER NOTED T HE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SHORT DEDUCTED THE TAX BY RS.21,560/-, WHICH WAS TH E DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HELD TO BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON RS .21,560/- @ 1% PER MONTH OF DEFAULT AT RS.10,350/-. FURTHER SUM OF RS .42,720/- WAS INTEREST CHARGED ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TAXES DEDUCTED IN RESPEC T OF OTHER PARTIES UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEA L I.E. NON GRANT OF OPPORTUNITY BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO VARIO US OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO BE DECIDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IN RELATION TO THE NON D EDUCTION/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON SUCH NON DEDUCTION/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. FURTHER ISSUE RAISED W AS CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TAX AT SOURCE DEDUCTED OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO OTHER PARTIES. OT HER GROUNDS INCLUDING NON GRANT OF OPPORTUNITY BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND N ON CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T (APPEALS) I.E. WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTION STATEMENT FILED, ETC., WER E NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THUS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THUS THE ONLY ISSUE TO B E DECIDED IS THE LEVY OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER INTEREST CHARGEABLE 4 UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 8. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT [293 ITR 226 (SC)] UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY OF THE TAX ALLEGED TO BE IN DEFAULT ONCE AGAIN FROM THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING T HAT THE PAYEE HAD ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE TAXES ONCE AGAIN CO ULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE DEDUCTOR ASSESSEE SINCE THE TAXES HAD ALRE ADY BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FUR THER NOTED THE CONTENTS OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29.1.1997 ISSUED BY CBDT AND HELD THAT THE DEDUCTOR ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UN DER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DE DUCTEE ASSESSEE, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 10. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95- IT(B), DT. 29 TH JAN., 1997 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE CONTROVERSY. THE CIRCULAR DECLARES NO DEMAND VISUALIZED UNDER S.201(1) OF TH E IT ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS S ATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF TDS, THAT TAXES DUE HAVE B EEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT A LTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST UNDER S. 201(1A) OF TH E ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESS EE OR THE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY UNDER S. 271C OF THE IT A CT. 9. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN APPLIE D IN NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE PAYEE, INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS CHARGEABLE TILL THE DATE OF P AYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE PAYEE. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. MARKETING COMMITTEE (2011)[7 IT R 769 (DEL)] WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE TAX IS SUBS EQUENTLY PAID BY THE 5 DEDUCTEE, THE LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST WOULD NOT S EIZE FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH REVENUE REMAIN DEPRIVED OF THE AMOUNT, WHICH WERE RIGHTLY DUE TO IT AND IN THAT CASE THE DEDUCTOR WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER V IDE PARA 10 HELD AS UNDER: 10. IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT DEDUCTEE, NAMELY, HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETI NG BOARD HAS ALREADY DISCHARGED ITS LIABILITY, NO DEMAND AS RAIS ED BY THE AO UNDER S. 201(1) CAN NOW BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE PRESENT AS SESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPR A), WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DEMAND VISUALIZED UNDER S. 201(1) SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE AO (TDS) THAT TAX DUE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTE E. HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE TAX UND ER S. 201(1A) TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE OR THIS WI LL NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271C OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE DEDUCTEE HAS BEEN IN THE MEANTIME DISCHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE TAX DUE FROM THE DE DUCTEE HAVE BEEN PAID BY DEDUCTEE, THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE AO UNDER S. 201(1) SHALL REMAIN VACATED. HOWEVER, THE AO SHALL BE AT L IBERTY TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CHA RGING INTEREST UNDER S. 201(1A) AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PRODUCE ALL NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THE AO SHALL MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRY ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT A ND RECOVERY OF DEMAND IN THE CASE OF DEDUCTEE, NAMELY, HARYANA STA TE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, AND, THEREFORE, AO SHALL VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME OF DEDUCTEE WAS FULLY EXEMPTED UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SS. 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT OR WHETHER THERE WAS ANY TAX LI ABILITY PAYABLE BY THE DEDUCTEE I.E. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETI NG BOARD AND WHETHER THAT LIABILITY HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THAT ASSESSEE. ALL THE FACTS SHALL BE EXAMINED AND THE MATTER SHALL BE DEC IDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME ( COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). WE ORD ER ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE BANGALORE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. INTE L TECH INDIA (P) LTD. (2009)[32 SOT 227 (BANG)] CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF TAXES DEDUCTION AT SOURCE WHERE THE DEDUCTOR WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BUT HAD NOT SO DEDUCTED THE TAXES. HOWEVER, THE DEDUCT EE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH SHOWED THAT NO TAXES WAS PAYABLE ON S UCH TRANSACTION. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID FACTS HELD THAT THE D EFAULT IN NON PAYMENT 6 OF TAXES ENDED ON THE DATE WHEN THE DEDUCTEE FILED THE RETURN AND IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER SECT ION 201(1) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER THE DEDUCTOR WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UND ER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT UP TO 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2004 I.E. THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE DEDUCTEE. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS U NDER: THE LIABILITY OF THE DEDUCTOR TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOU RCE WILL END WHEN THE DEDUCTEE HAS FILED THE RETURN. THE DEDUCTOR CANNOT BE SUPPOSED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF ADJUSTMENT IF AN Y MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT OF THE DEDUCTEE . THE DEDUCTOR WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE AND, THERE FORE, THE DEDUCTOR WAS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT; THE DEDUCTEE HAS FILED THE RETURN AND HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME AND THAT SHOWS NO TAX WAS PAYABLE ON SUCH TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE DEFAULT WILL END ON THE DATE WHEN THE DEDUCTEE HAS FILED THE RET URN. HENCE, THE DEDUCTOR WILL BE LIABLE TO INTEREST UNDER S. 201(1A ) UPTO 1ST NOV., 2004. HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE NO DEDUCTION UNDER S. 201 SINCE THE DEDUCTEE HAS FILED THE RETURN AND HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION AND NO TAX IS PAYABLE AS PER THE RETURN ON SUCH TRANSAC TION BY THE DEDUCTEE. HENCE, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CANCELING T HE DEMAND UNDER S. 201 IS UPHELD. HOWEVER, THE DEDUCTOR WILL BE LIA BLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE DATE O F DEDUCTION TILL 1ST NOV., 2004.-HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LT D, VS. CIT (2007) 211 CTR (SC) 545 : (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) AND CIT VS. ELI LILLY & CO. (I) (P) LTD. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20 : (2009) 21 DTR (SC) 74 RELIED ON. 11. SIMILAR PROPOSITION WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN GINNI INTERNATIONAL LTD. [296 ITR 652 (DEL)]. T HE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING (P) LTD. [2 88 ITR 379 (DEL)] HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS OBLIGED TO DED UCT TAX AT SOURCE BUT HAD NOT SO DEDUCTED THE TAX, COULD NOT BE ASKED TO PAY THE SAME WHERE THE DEDUCTEE HAD PAID THE TAXES AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT, WAS NOT CHARGEABLE FOR ANY PERIOD AFTER THE DA TE ON WHICH THE TAX HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PAID BY THE PAYEE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR HAS PAID THE AMOUNTS TO THE PAYEE ON WHICH IT WAS OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE BUT HAD FAIL ED TO DEDUCT THE SAME, SUCH ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR IS THOUGH DEDUCTOR IN DEFAUL T, HOWEVER, IN ALL SUCH CASES WHERE THE PAYEE DEDUCTEE HAD EITHER TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION 7 THE TRANSACTION AND PAID TAXES THEREON, NO DEMAND I S TO BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE DEDUCTOR. EVEN IN ALL SUCH CASES WHERE THE DEDUCTEE HAS CONSIDERED TH E TRANSACTION AS PART OF ITS INCOME BUT HAD NOT PAID ANY TAXES THEREON BE CAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, NO TAXES WERE PAYABLE BY THE DEDUCTEE, NO DEMAND COULD BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. H OWEVER, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TAXES DUE HAD BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE OR THE TRANSACTIO N/PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PAYEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED BY IT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE LIABILITY TO PAY INT EREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXE S BY THE DEDUCTEE OR THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE DEDU CTEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS UPON THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR. 13. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THA T IS IN RELATION TO THE FIRST QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON DEDUCTIO N OF TAX UNDER SECTION 201 (1)OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT RS.21,560/- AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHARGED AT RS.10,350/-. THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND AS ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE REFLE CTS THAT OUT OF AMOUNT PAID TO HAFED THERE IS SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX BY RS .21,372/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTIO N 201(1) OF THE ACT, ON WHICH INTEREST WAS CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,259/-. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY M/S HAFED ON THE SAID AMOUN T PAID TO THEM. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS VERI FICATION AND IN CASE THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PAYEE I. E. M/S HAFED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, NO DEMAND IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SEC TION 201(1) OF THE 8 ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY INTERE ST AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BY M/S HAFED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL A CCORDINGLY COMPUTE THE INTEREST PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE SHORT DEDUCTION OF RS.188/- ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO OTHERS AND INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1A ) OF THE ACT OF RS.91/-, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN V IEW OF THE ADMISSION OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, OF SHORT DEDUCTI ON OF TAXES BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.42,720/- AS PER ANNEXURE TO ORDER PASSED, ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN TAXES DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES. THE LEAR NED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THERE IS A DEFAULT IN DEPOSIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,280/- NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID AND CHEQUES WERE CLEARED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED UNDER THE STATUTE. 15. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS 11.5.2007 IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PAYMENTS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CHEQUES WERE CLEAR ED WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER THE STATUTE AND HENCE NO DEFAULT, FOR WHICH NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, W E REMIT THE ASPECT OF VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BACK TO T HE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, INTEREST CHARGED TO THE EXTENT O F RS.24,280/- UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. IN RESPECT O F THE BALANCE AMOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY 9 THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.768/CHD/2012 16. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.768/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PA SSING THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD, CI T (A) BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) AND LD. A.O. ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)/A.O. BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1). 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A). 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETI NG THE DEMAND OF INTEREST U/S. 201 (1A) WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY TH E LD. A. O. TWICE I.E. ONCE IN THE ORDER U/S. 201 (1A) FOR WHOL E OF THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND AGAIN BY MAKING ORDER U/S 201 (1A) FOR EACH QUARTER SEPARATELY FOR THE F.Y.2007-08. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DE LETING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE AMOUNT OF TDS HAS BEE N DEPOSITED AND ALSO THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 8. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELET ING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE CHEQUE FOR DEPOSIT OF TDS HAS B EEN TENDERED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BUT THE SAME WERE CLEARED AF TER THE PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED GIVING THE S ET OFF OF RS. 17,027/- AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 (1A) AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,027/- HAS BEEN PAID IN EXCESS IN QUARTER FOUR OF F.Y. 2007-08 THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 008579 DT. 6.5.2008. 10. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DIS PUTES THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND OF TAX & INTEREST. 11. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION O R AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 10 17. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENT ICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NO.767/CHD/2012. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE PRESENT CASE IN RESPECT OF SECOND QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF T HE ACT AT RS.44,740/- AND HAD CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF T HE ACT FOR SUCH NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT RS.19,320/-. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD FURTHER CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) ON L ATE PAYMENT OF TDS BY THE ASSESSEE ON OTHER PAYMENTS AT RS.34,960/-. IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED FOR SHORT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 2 01(1) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF SUM OF RS.44,740/- BEING SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAXES IN RESPE CT OF TWO PARTIES I.E. HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, AGAINST WHOM SHORT DEDUCTION OF RS.2990/- AND SAMAR ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, AGAINST WHOM SHORT DEDUCTION OF RS.39,936/-, WAS COMPUTED AND THE SAID PARTIES HAD PAID TAXES AND/ OR HAD INCLUDED THE SAID INCOME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS AND HENCE THERE WAS NO DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN LINE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEV ERAGE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN CASE THE SAID TAXES HAD EITHER BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT OR THE INCOME IN AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DEDUCT OR HAD BEEN INCLUDED BY THE DEDUCTEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS, NO D EMAND IS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS IN THE PARAS HE REINABOVE FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULT TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN/S OF INCOME BY THE RESPECTIVE PAYEES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS HELD T O BE DEDUCTOR IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.1814/- AND UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF R S.798/- IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE PARTIES. 11 18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT AT RS.34,960/- ON ACCOUNT OF LAT E DEPOSIT OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER AMOUNTS DUE IN THE S ECOND QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE SAID DETAILS ARE ANNEX ED AS ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID DETAILS R EFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT AS THE DATE OF D EPOSIT OF THE DUE TAXES WAS 8.8.2007 THOUGH UNDER THE STATUTE THE SAID PAYM ENT WAS TO BE MADE BY 7.8.2007. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN RESPEC T OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.28,09,411/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD EVIDENCE OF BANKERS CHEQUE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE INTO THE ACCOUNT OF TDS DATED 3.8.2007, WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS CLEARED ON 7.8.2007. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLEARED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DEDUC TOR, THEN THE DATE OF CLEARANCE IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF PAYMENT WHI CH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS 7.8.2007 IN RESPECT OF TOTAL TDS SUM OF RS.28,09 ,411/-. THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT IS RS.28,094/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. WE THUS DELETE THE INTEREST CHARGE D UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28,094/- AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.6866/- IS CONFIRMED. 19. THAT AS REFERRED IN PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE BALA NCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.769/CHD/2012 20. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.769/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 12 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PA SSING THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD, CI T (A) BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) AND LD. A.O. ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)/A.O. BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1). 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A). 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETI NG THE DEMAND OF INTEREST U/S. 201 (1A) WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY TH E LD. A. O. TWICE I.E. ONCE IN THE ORDER U/S. 201 (1A) FOR WHOL E OF THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND AGAIN BY MAKING ORDER U/S 201 (1A) FOR EACH QUARTER SEPARATELY FOR THE F.Y.2007-08. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED GIVING THE S ET OFF OF RS. 17,027/- AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 (1A) AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,027/- HAS BEEN PAID IN EXCESS IN QUARTER FOUR OF F.Y. 2007-08 THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 008579 DT. 6.5.2008. 8. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DIS PUTES THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND OF TAX & INTEREST. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION O R AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 21. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.769/CHD/2012 IS RELATABLE TO THIRD QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTO R WAS CHARGED FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT RS.1,24,340/- UNDER SECTI ON 201(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE SAID SHORT DEDUCTION OR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201 (1A) OF THE ACT AT RS.52,220/-. FURTHER INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A ) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.250/- WAS LEVIED AS INTEREST ON LAT E DEPOSIT OF TDS ON ACCOUNT OF BALANCE PARTIES. 22. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE SAI D LEVY UNDER SECTION 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD IS 13 THAT SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX OF RS.1,24,340/- IS IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, WHO IN TURN HAD PAID TAXES AND/ OR OFFERED THE SAID PAYMENTS AS PART OF ITS INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ABOVE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS V ERIFICATION AND CONSEQUENTLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VER IFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN CASE THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRE CT THEN NO DEMAND IS TO BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. HOWE VER, INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT FROM TH E DATE OF PAYMENT TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE DEDUCTEE PAYEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE SAID I NTEREST IN RELATION TO THE PAYMENT TO M/S HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS THU S UPHELD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.2 50/- UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS ON CERTAI N OTHER PAYMENT, WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 23. THE BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEALS AS IN THE EARLIE R YEARS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.770/CHD/2012 24. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.770/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PA SSING THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD, CI T (A) BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) AND LD. A.O. ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROVIDING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)/A.O. BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1). 14 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A). 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETI NG THE DEMAND OF INTEREST U/S. 201 (1A) WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY TH E LD. A. O. TWICE I.E. ONCE IN THE ORDER U/S. 201 (1A) FOR WHOL E OF THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND AGAIN BY MAKING ORDER U/S 201 (1A) FOR EACH QUARTER SEPARATELY FOR THE F.Y.2007-08. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DE LETING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) WHERE THE AMOUNT HA S BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEES ON 31.3.2008 AND THE AMOUNT OF TDS ON THE SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WITHI N 2 MONTHS I.E. UPTO 31.5.2008. 8. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELET ING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE CHEQUE FOR DEPOSIT OF TDS HAS B EEN TENDERED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BUT THE SAME WERE CLEARED AF TER THE PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED GIVING THE S ET OFF OF RS. 17,027/- AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 (1A) AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,027/- HAS BEEN PAID IN EXCESS IN QUARTER FOUR OF F.Y. 2007-08 THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 008579 DT. 6.5.2008. 10. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DIS PUTES THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND OF TAX & INTEREST. 11. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION O R AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 25. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE IS IN RELATION TO FOURTH QUARTER OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE SHORT DEDUCTED THE TAX AND DEMAND WAS RAISED UNDER SECTIO N 201(1) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,09,310/-, ON WHICH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED AT RS.5,79,840/-. FURTHER I NTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) CHARGED ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS IN RESPECT O F OTHER PAYMENTS TOTALING RS.1,67,310/-. 26. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE SAI D. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TABULATED DETAILS PARTY-WISE OF SHORT DEDUCTI ON OF TAX AND THE INTEREST THEREON AS CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT PAGE 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS A GAINST THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SEVEN PARTIES, FIVE PARTIES I.E. HARYANA SEED DE VELOPMENT CORPORATION, HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,, HARY ANA FOREST 15 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SAMAR ESTATE PRIVATE LIMIT ED AND HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAD FILED RETURN OF IN COME IN WHICH THE SAID TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN REFLECTED. FOLLOWING T HE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVER AGE (P) LTD. (SUPRA), NO DEMAND CAN BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 201( 1A) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE PAYEE HAD PAID TAXES ON SUCH RECEIPTS, OR CONSIDERED THE SAID TRANSACTION IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHERE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR WAS IN DEFAULT. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN PARAS HEREINABOV E WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF FIVE PARTIES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE VERIFI ED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE BALA NCE TWO PARTIES THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF RS.3373/- IS UPHELD UNDER SECTIO N 201(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT I.E. FR OM THE DATE OF PAYMENT TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOM E BY THE RESPECTIVE FIVE PARTIES. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE TWO PARTIES INT EREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1354/- IS UP HELD. 27. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER CHARGED INTER EST 201(1A) OF THE ACT AS DETAILED IN ANNEXURE ANNEXED TO THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. OUT OF THE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF 19 PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE IS AGG RIEVED WITH THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN THE PAYMENT OF TAXES IN RESPECT O F THE PROVISIONS MADE ON 31.3.2008, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF TDS WAS 31.5.2008. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HA D DEPOSITED THE SAID AMOUNT ON 9.5.2008, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT BY TWO MONTHS IN DEPOSITING THE SA ID AMOUNT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT IS PROVIDED THAT W HERE ANY SUCH SUM IS 16 CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE ON THE LAST DA TE OF FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE SAID SUM IS PAYABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, TAX AT SOURCE IS TO BE DEPOSITED WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. BY 31.5.2008. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CAS E HAD DEPOSITED THE TAXES AT SOURCE ON 9.5.2008, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE TABULATED DETAILS IN THE ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS TABULAT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN CHARGI NG INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,63 ,656/-. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE INTEREST CHARGED AT RS.3654/- UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. 28. THE BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE WERE NOT PRESSED, HENCE THESE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.715/CHD/2012 29. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.715/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PA SSING THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD, CI T (A) BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS CREDITED INCOME FALLING U/S. 193, 194A, 194C TO 194J ETC. WHERE AS THE SAME ARE ALREADY PART OF REC ORD. 4. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) HAS MISINTERPRETED THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 30 OF THE I.T. RULES. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELET ING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST U/S. 201 (1A) WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY TH E LD. A. O. TWICE I.E. ONCE IN THE ORDER U/S. 201 (1A) FOR WHOL E OF THE F. Y. 2007-08 AND AGAIN BY MAKING ORDER U/S. 201 (1A ) FOR EACH QUARTER SEPARATELY FOR THE F.Y.2007-08. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDI TED TO 17 THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE ON 31.3.2008 AND THE AMOUN T OF TDS ON SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WITHIN 2 MONTHS I.E. UPTO 3 1.5.2008. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DE LETING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE AMOUNT OF TDS HAS BEE N DEPOSITED AND ALSO THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 8. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELET ING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE CHEQUE FOR DEPOSIT OF TDS HAS B EEN TENDERED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BUT THE SAME WERE CLEARED AF TER THE PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED GIVING THE S ET OFF OF RS. 17,027/-AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 (1A) AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,027/- HAS BEEN PAID IN EX CESS THROUGH CHEQUE NO.008579DT.6.5.2008. 10. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DIS PUTES THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND OF INTEREST. 11. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION O R AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 30. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS VIDE GROUND NO.5 UNDER WHICH IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHARGED TWICE I.E. VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AND VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED QUARTER WISE. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE INTEREST U NDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED QUARTERLY AGAINST THE RETURN S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISION OF TDS. 31. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N UNDER THE STATUTE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE QUARTERLY E-RETURNS OF TDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIRST CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE QUARTERS IN RESPECT OF THE DEFAULT IN DEPOSITING TH E TDS FOR THE SAID QUARTERS. FURTHER ANOTHER CUMULATIVE ORDER WAS PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH IN TEREST FOR THE FULL FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 WAS CHARGED. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH CHARGING OF INTEREST FOR THE ENT IRE YEAR IN RELATION TO 18 THE DEFAULT OF TDS NOTED IN QUARTERLY E-TDS RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ONCE INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED QUARTERLY IN RESPECT OF E-TDS RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO FURTHER INTEREST ON SIMILAR GROUND COULD BE CHARGED U//S 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR THE FULL FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 2007-08, ONCE SUCH INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED QUARTER WISE IN THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 201 & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 32. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION AFTER VERIFYING THE RECORD AND ALSO T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BEHALF. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT BY OUR SE PARATE ORDER WOULD NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 33. THE BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOT PRESSED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.716/CHD/2012 34. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.716/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT PA SSING THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD, CI T (A) BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUES TAKEN IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS CREDITED INCOME FALLING U/S. 193, 194A, 194C TO 194J ETC. WHERE AS THE SAME ARE ALREADY PART OF REC ORD. 19 4. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) HAS MISINTERPRETED THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 30 OF THE I.T. RULES. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDI TED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE ON 31.3.2008 AND THE AMOUN T OF TDS ON SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WITHIN 2 MONTHS I.E. UPTO 3 1.5.2008. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DE LETING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE AMOUNT OF TDS HAS BEE N DEPOSITED AND ALSO THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 7. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELET ING THE DEMAND OF INTEREST, WHERE THE CHEQUE FOR DEPOSIT OF TDS HAS B EEN TENDERED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BUT THE SAME WERE CLEARED AF TER THE PRESCRIBED TIME UNDER THE ACT. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED GIVING THE S ET OFF OF RS. 94,623/-AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 (1A) AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.94,623/- HAS BEEN PAID IN EX CESS THROUGH CHEQUE NO.009619 DT. 6.4.2009. 9. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DIS PUTES THE QUANTUM OF DEMAND OF INTEREST. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION O R AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 35. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 AND 7 TO 10 ARE NOT PRESSED AND THE ONLY ISSUE RE MAINING FOR ADJUDICATION WAS THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE ACC OUNT OF THE PAYEE ON 31.3.2009 AND THE AMOUNT OF TDS ON THE SAID WAS DEP OSITED WITHIN TWO MONTHS. THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS RS.48,51,586/-. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AM OUNTING TO RS.48,91,586/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 15.4.2009. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DUE TO BE DEPO SITED BY 7.4.2009 AND CONSEQUENTLY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR LATE DEPOSIT OF TAX OF RS.46,916/- WAS CHARGED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN PARAS HEREINABOVE IN RELATION TO THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TAX AT SOURCE WH ERE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE AT THE CL OSE OF THE YEAR. UNDER 20 THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE IN ALL SUCH CASES WHERE T HE AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE ON THE DATE UPTO WHICH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PERSONS WERE MADE, THEN IN SUCH CASES TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS TO BE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHI N TWO MONTHS IN WHICH SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION MA DE ON 31.3.2009, TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEPOSITED ON 15.4.2009 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE UP TO WHICH ITS ACCOUNTS WERE MADE I.E. 31.3.2009. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN V IEW THEREOF WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE AND IN CASE THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND NOS.4 AND 5 ARE A LLOWED. 36. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.6 IS ALS O AGAINST CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE AMOUNT DUE TO BE PAID ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DE DUCTED AT SOURCE WAS DEPOSITED AND CLEARED BY THE BANK ON 6.12.2008 AS A GAINST DUE DATE OF CLEARANCE ON 7.12.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT OF RS.85,869/- IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2008 WHERE THE TAX AT SOURCE WAS TO BE DEPOSITED BY 7.12.2008 BUT WAS DEPOSITED ON A LATER DATE. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE ON 6.12.2008. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE ORDER LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT F OR NON DEPOSIT OF TAX AT SOURCE IN TIME, IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING DEPOSITED THE SAID TAXES WITHIN THE TIME FRA ME. THE GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 21 37. THE BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, NOT PRESSED BY T HE ASSESSEE, ARE DISMISSED. 38. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.716/CHD/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 39. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS.767/CHD/2012 TO 770/CHD/2012, ITA NO.715/CHD/2012 & ITA NO.716/C HD/2012 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH DECEMBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH