Ita/356/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cochin v. The T.c.c Co-Operative Society Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN ITA.No. 356 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.333/COCH/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE T.C.C. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD UDYOGAMANDAL. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Respondent is a co-operative society formed by the employees ofa State Government company. The employees welfare fund of thecompany had made deposits with the respondent in respect of whichinterest was paid to the employees welfare fund. However, interestwas paid by the respondent without deduction of tax at source. Eventhough the recipient was registered under Section 12A, they settledliability under the Karvivad Sammadhan Scheme. Department raisedinterest demand under Section 201 of the IT Act on the belatedpayment of TDS. In appeal filed challenging the demand of interest,the Tribunal noticed that the omission is bona fide because the recipientwas registered under Section 12A of the Act and hence cancelled thedemand. It is against this order that. the Department has filed thisappeal. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant.Besides what is found by the Tribunal, we feel while settling the liability of the recipient under Karvivad Sammadhan Scheme interestpayable for non-payment of advance tax also would have beenreckoned. Therefore no prejudice is caused to the department, whenthe recipient settled income tax liability in respect of entire interestincome paid by the respondent. Consequently we find no merit in theappeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk