IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2020-21 & 2022-23 Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. VII/83//8,Esaf Bhavan, Thirssur- Palakkad NH, Mannuthy P.O., Thrissur 680651 [PAN: AAECE2619Q]

vs.

The Income Tax Officer - TDS, Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Anandan, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

O R D E R

Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 23.07.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to

2020-21 & 2022-23.

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 645/Coch/2025 for AY 2018-19 are stated herein.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of banking. The Income Tax Officer-TDS, Thrissur had conducted survey operations in the business premises of the appellant u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28.06.2022. During the course of the survey proceedings, the TDS officer found that the appellant bank had not deducted tax at source u/s. 194A of the Act in respect of interest payments exceeding Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. paid to senior citizens by accepting invalid Form 15G/H. Accordingly, the TDS officer was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and held that the appellant is an assessee in default and demanded tax of Rs. 8,80,694/- u/s. 201(1A) of the Act in respect of FY 2020-21 vide order dated

19.07.2022 passed u/s. 201(1A) of the Act.

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the appellant had duly complied with the provisions of section 197A(IC) of the Act. It is further contended that provisions of section 197A(1C) does not cast responsibility on the payer of income to verify the taxable income of the persons who had given Form 15H. Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that the recipients of the interest had already paid tax on the interest income. The Income Tax Officer without giving an opportunity to produce the relevant evidence to this effect, cannot treat the appellant as “an assessee in default”. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) [2012] 345 ITR 288. However, the CIT(A), without addressing the contentions raised by the appellant merely dismissed the appeal.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is not in default in terms of the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act as the appellant had duly complied with the provisions of section 197A(1C) by obtaining Form 15H in terms of section 197A(1A) of the Act. There is no obligation on the part of the appellant bank to verify the taxable income. In this regard he also placed reliance on the decision of the Nagpur bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bank of India v. DCIT (TDS) in ITA No. 359/ Nag/2022 dated 28.09.2023. It is further submitted that in view of the explanation to section 197A the appellant bank cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” notwithstanding the fact that the appellant bank had not deducted tax at source on interest payment as the payee had paid tax directly.

8. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR, placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of The South Indian Bank Ltd. in ITA Nos. 459 to 464/Coch/2023 dated 22.05.2024 submitted that in view of the decision the order of the CIT(A) to be upheld.

9. In the rejoinder