9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1124 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDeletion of Penalty u/s 8-D(6) of U. P. Trade Tax Act - for the month of November 2000 and March 2001, the TDS was not deducted by the petitioner - Held that - From the record, it appears that the petitioner had deposited the TDS alongwith interest for the delay. Thus, there was no loss to the revenue. When the TDS was deposited alongwith interest and there was no loss to the revenue, then there was no justification for levy of the penalty - There was no malafide intention on the part of the assesee. There was no justification for levy of the penalty - deletion of penalty upheld - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Department's appeal against cancellation of penalty under section 8-D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 2000-2001. Analysis: The High Court of Allahabad heard a revision filed by the department challenging the cancellation of penalty under section 8-D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 2000-2001. The Tribunal had cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS for the months of November 2000 and March 2001. The first appellate authority had upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal overturned it. The petitioner had deposited the TDS along with interest for the delay, resulting in no loss to the revenue. The Court noted that in such a scenario, where there was no loss to the revenue and no malafide intention on the part of the assessee, the penalty was not justified. The Court referred to the case of Price Waterhouse Cooper vs. CIT and held that based on the principles established in that case, there was no justification for the penalty in this instance. The Court found that since the TDS was deposited along with interest and there was no revenue loss, the penalty was unwarranted. The Court emphasized that in the absence of any malafide intention and considering the precedent set by the Price Waterhouse Cooper case, the penalty was not justified. Consequently, the Court decided not to interfere with the Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty and upheld the reasons provided by the Tribunal in its decision. Therefore, the revision filed by the department was dismissed by the Court.
|
