2015-VIL-1044-ITAT-DEL

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal DELHI

ITA Nos.1360 to 1362/Del/2014, 1351 to 1353/Del/2014, 1354/Del/2014, 1355/Del/2014, 1357 & 1358/Del/2014, 1363 to 1374/Del/2014,1375 & 1376/Del/2014, 1387 & 1388/Del/2014, 1377 to & 1386/Del/2014, 3197 to 3199/Del/2014, 3600 to 3606/Del/2014

Date: 07.08.2015

ADDL. CIT (TDS) , GHAZIABAD

Vs

CANARA BANK, UCO BANK, PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, STATE BANK OF PATIALA, THE CORPORATION BANK, VIJAYA BANK, M/s ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, M/s PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate, Ms Raj Rani Lakra & Ms Reema Malik, CAs
For the Respondent :Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT, DR

BENCH

SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

JUDGMENT

PER BENCH:

The captioned appeals – some of which have been filed by the assessee and the others by the Revenue – involve either or both the issues, viz., the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), Noida to pass the order and confirmation/deletion of demand created by the Addl.CIT(TDS) Ghaziabad u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961  (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) towards failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source from the interest paid by it to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).

2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In the present batch of appeals, in some cases, the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, which has led to the filing of appeals by the Revenue and vice versa. It is relevant to mention that simultaneous with the present batch of appeals, we also heard an appeal by the Revenue in ITA No.1359/Del/2014 named as Addl. CIT(TDS) Ghaziabad vs. Canara Bank, Noida, for which we have passed a separate detailed order today itself. In that case, it has been held that between the period 5.6.2014 to 15.11.2014, the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to pass the orders against the orders of the Addl.CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad rested with the CIT(A), Ghaziabad and for the periods prior to 5.6.2014 and after 15.11.2014, it vested in CIT(A), Noida. It has, therefore, been held that only the CIT(A), Noida had rightful jurisdiction over the appeals emanating from the orders passed by the Addl. CIT(TDS), Ghaziabad. On merits, it has been held that the payment of interest by the banks to NOIDA does not require any tax withholding as the same is covered u/s 194A(3)(iii)(f). Resultantly, the order passed by the Addl CIT(TDS) u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) read with section 194A has been set aside.

3. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals are, mutatis mutandis, similar to those of ITA No.1359/Del/2014. Following the view taken in that appeal, we eventually hold that the assessee bank cannot be treated as assessee in default u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Further, in the appeals in which the question of jurisdiction is involved, it is held that the orders have been passed by the correct CIT(A) having jurisdiction over the concerned assesses.

4. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and those filed by the assessee are allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2015.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.