AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax
  • 231): "Section 4 of the I.T. Act
  • Sub-section (2) of Section 4
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax
  • 231): "Section 4 of the I.T. Act
  • Sub-section (2) of Section 4
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, referred a question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue arose from the assessment year 1977-78, where the Divisional Manager of New India Insurance Co., Ltd., Bhopal, filed an annual return of salary income for its employees, showing tax deducted under Section 192 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer (ITO), Salaries Circle (TDS), found discrepancies in the tax deducted for some employees and demanded additional tax under Section 201 of the Act. The assessee appealed, arguing that the ITO’s recomputation was unjustified because the chargeable income had been bona fide estimated by the employer. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the assessee, holding that the employer had discharged his obligation if the tax was deducted based on a bona fide estimate, and that the ITO could not recover tax from the employer after the employee’s assessment was completed and tax paid. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading the Department to seek this court’s opinion on the legal question.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle (TDS), has jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to demand further tax from the employer in respect of tax short deducted relating to an employee, where a regular assessment of the employee has been completed and the tax fully paid by him?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
CIT v. Manager, M. P. State Co-operative Development Bank Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 230 (MP) Clarification that after a regular assessment of an employee is completed and tax fully paid by him, the ITO (TDS) has no jurisdiction under Section 201 to demand further tax from the employer for short deduction. The court applied this precedent to hold that the Tribunal was correct in denying the ITO jurisdiction to demand additional tax from the employer once the employee’s tax assessment was complete and tax paid.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory scheme under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the principal liability for income tax lies with the person receiving the income. Section 192 obligates the employer to deduct tax at source based on a bona fide estimate of the employee’s chargeable salary income. Section 201 deems the employer an assessee in default if tax is not deducted or paid. However, where the employee’s assessment is finalized and tax fully paid, the ITO (TDS) cannot demand additional tax from the employer for short deduction relating to that employee’s income. The court relied on the precedent in CIT v. Manager, M. P. State Co-operative Development Bank Ltd., which held that once the employee’s tax liability is conclusively determined and discharged, the employer’s obligation under Section 192 is considered satisfied, and further recovery under Section 201 is not permissible. This reasoning led to the affirmation of the Tribunal’s decision denying the Department’s appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle (TDS), has no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to demand further tax from the employer in respect of tax short deducted relating to an employee where the employee’s regular assessment is complete and tax fully paid by him.

The direct effect of this decision is that employers who have made bona fide estimates and deducted tax accordingly are protected from further demands once the employee’s tax assessment is finalized. The Department’s appeal was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent beyond affirming existing principles.

    Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bhopal v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

    1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :

    "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where a regular assessment of an employee has been completed and the amount of tax fully paid by him, the Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle (TDS), has no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Act to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax short deducted relating to such employee ?"

    2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows:

    In compliance with the provisions of Section 206 of the Act, the Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co., Ltd., Bhopal, filed for the assessment year 1977-78, the annual return of salary income in respect of its employees showing the amount of tax deductible under Section 192 of the Act. The ITO, Salaries Circle (TDS) examined the said return and found that the tax deductible under Section 192 of the Act was not properly deducted by the assessee in respect of some of its employees. He, therefore, recomputed the income and demanded under Section 201 of the Act, the additional tax that should have been deducted under Section 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal. It was urged on bebalf of the assessee that the revision of chargeable income from salary was mainly due to the fact that the ITO (TDS) had disallowed various exemptions and deductions which were being claimed in respect of certain employees, and the ITO was not justified in demanding from the assessee additional tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this contention urged on behalf of the assessee. He held that for the purpose of Section 192 of the Act, the chargeable income had to be computed by the employer in accordance with his own understanding and judgment. He, therefore, held that if the employer made a bona fide estimate of the income chargeable under the head "Salary" and deducted tax accordingly, he had discharged his obligation under the law. The ITO (TDS) was accordingly directed to review his computation of chargeable income and to re-determine the chargeable income of the employees under Section 192 of the Act. The Commissioner also held that the ITO was not competent to recover the tax deductible at source from the employer after the assessment of the employee had been completed and resultant tax had been paid by him. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, at the instance of the Department, the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.

    3. In CIT v. Manager, M. P. State Co-operative Development Bank Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 230 (MP), we had occasion to consider the question as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where a regular assessment of an employee had been completed and the amount of tax fully paid by him, the ITO, Salaries Circle (TDS) had no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Act, to demand further tax from the employee in respect of the tax short deducted relating to such employees. In this connection it was observed as follows (p. 231):

    "Section 4 of the I.T. Act is the charging section which provides that income-tax should be charged for every assessment year in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that income-tax shall be deducted at the source or paid in advance where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of the said Act. The principal liability for payment of income-tax is, therefore, that of the person who receives income. Chapter XVII of the Act provides for deduction of tax at source. Section 192(1) lays down that any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax computed on the basis of the rates in force, on theiestimated income of the assessee under this head for that financial year. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that if such person (person responsible for paying salary and deducting tax at source), does not deduct or, after deducting, fails to pay tax, he will be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax. In the case under reference, it was not the case of the Department that the assessee, i. e., the Manager, M.P. State Co-operative Development Bank Ltd., Bhopal, did not deduct tax at source from the salary paid to his employees. The ITO in charge of TDS, however, was not satisfied with the various deductions which were taken into consideration at the time of computing the tax payable at source. Further, as the statement of case shows, the regular assessment of the employees had been completed and the amount of tax was fully paid by them. The ITO, Salaries Circle (TDS), could not, therefore, demand further tax from the employer in respect of the income of the employees, which was the salary of the employees chargeable to tax, when the same had been fully paid."

    4. In view of our aforesaid decision, it must be held that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where a regular assessment of an employee had been completed and the amount of tax fully paid by him, the ITO, Salary Circle (TDS), had no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Act to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax short deducted relating to such employee.

    5. In our opinion, therefore, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bhopal v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
    (Jul 19, 1982)