This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Certificate issued U/s./ 195(2) was not withdrawn so assessee was not required to deduct TDS and could not be treated as assessee in default
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- CIT Vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Punjab and Haryana HC
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Source: CIT v. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. (ITR No. 162 of 1996) P&H HC dated 9 March 2011 – The taxpayer was not required to deduct tax at source once no objection certificate under section 195(2) of the ITA was obtained by the taxpayer and had not been cancelled under section 195(4) of the Income Tax Act.
CIT Vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court)
I.T.R. No. 162 of 1996 Date of decision: 9.3.2011
ORDER
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh has referred for opinion of this Court following questions of law, arising out of its order dated 21 .2.1995 in I.T.A. No....
The court has rested its decision, quite rightly so, on the only ground- though not specifically addressed- that the certificate granted U/S 195(2) was in force; hence there was no case for the Revenue to treat the Respondent as an assessee-in-default. Consequently, the court has refused to give its opinion on the two questions turning on ‘merits’ actually referred.
The court seems to have tacitly taken a very liberal / mild view of the whole matter; thereby, obviating the scope for multiplicity of proceedings. In that, it has refrained from taking a serious or adverse view of the abject failure on the part of the Revenue in giving any thought to and seeking to raise what really was a proper, or primarily essential question, if not the only one, to be framed for reference to court.
Of course, if it were to have been the only or primary question raised then, there was every possibility of a reference to court having been refused. For, in one’s strong conviction, as is supported by the court’s judgment itself, the proper question, perhaps the solitary question clinching the dispute that could have been raised is that turning on section 195. The provision of law being amply clear, a view could have been taken that the dispute involved no ‘referable’ question of law in its profound sense.
Further, on the flip side, a grave doubt that keeps haunting one’s mind is this:- Would not the court proceedings have possibly been avoided /averted had, even at the stage of second appeal, the decision been handed out on the same exclusive ground as has since been done by the court.