M/S. POPULAR PRINTERS V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)

WP(C)/1236/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Popular Printers, represented by its managing partner Prabha Thomas, who filed writ petitions against orders related to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) had demanded tax deductible at source and interest under Sections 201(1) and 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-submission of Form Nos. 15G/15H for interest payments on deposits. The petitioners contested the demands, citing the production of the forms, which were not verified by the Assessing Officer. The court referenced a decision by the Allahabad High Court and a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the stay of demand pending appeal, ultimately deciding against the petitioners.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699742 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) [(2012) 345 ITR 288 (All)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI; CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Assessment years; Form Nos.15G/15H; Income Tax; Tax deduction at source; TDS
• Section: 201(1); 201(1)(a)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 1236 of 2017 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M/S. POPULAR PRINTERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRABHA THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) ARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA 688 011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 003. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 1239/2017, WPC. 1244/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 1236 of 2017 (D) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 17.5.2016 P1A: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 23.5.2016 P1B: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 31.5.2016 P1C: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 12.8.2016 P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016 P2A: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016 P2B: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016 P2C: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016 P3: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2016 P4: COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1914 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED 2.2.1993 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E ========================= Dated this the 16th day of January, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the orders passed in the interlocutory applications filed in an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The assessment years in all the cases are of the years from 2013-14 to 2016-17. The allegations against all the three petitioners were of the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS), having not been made for payment of interest in the deposits accepted by the petitioners, nor Form Nos.15G/15H having been produced. The Assessing Officer had demanded the tax deductible at source as also the interest due under Sections 201(1) and 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contentions raised are that now the petitioners have produced Form Nos.15G/15H for all the aforesaid years. 2 W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the revenue would rely on the Office Memorandum [F.No.404/72/93-ITCC], dated 29.02.2016, wherein, as of now, a standardisation of grant of stay has been brought in by the Department by permitting a stay of demand, till disposal of first appeal, on payment of 15% of the disputed demand. The learned Counsel for the respondent however relies on clause(b) of paragraph 4, wherein, a blanket stay of the demand itself is mandated, when there is a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court, in favour of the assesse. 3. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jagran Prakashan ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) [(2012) 345 ITR 288 (All)] is relied on by the petitioners. The Appellate Authority has noticed the said judgment in its order. However, more pertinent would be the 3 W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E words employed in the Circular, which refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court. In such circumstance, based on the Allahabad High Court judgment, no stay can be demanded as a matter of right by the assessee. 4. In W.P.(C) No.1239 of 2017, it is seen that about Rs.9.50 crores/- were assessed as the tax deductible for each of the years. The total demand is of Rs.32 crores and the assessee claimed to have filed Form Nos.15G/15H coming to almost Rs.32crores. However, the assessee did not produce the documents before the Assessing Officer who has to verify it. As of now, the assessee is in default and the orders cannot be interfered with. In such circumstance, the assessee would be required to make payment of atleast 15% of the disputed demand, within a period of three months from the date of 4 W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the recovery proceedings shall continue. The facts and figures in all the writ petitions are almost similar and the same order shall regulate payment in all of them. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/16/01/2017 // true copy // P.A to Judge "