9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 638 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271C - Non deduction of TDS u/s 194A - The payment was made to the sister concern and the group has about 100 separate concerns at various places and large number of inter group transaction takes place involving large sums - assessee is under an obligation to deduct tax and the person making the deduction of tax at source is required to pay such deducted amount to the credit of the Central Government in the manner prescribed u/s.200 - Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 2007 -TMI - 1676 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein the applicability of ss. 194C, 194I, 201(1A) has been explained, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition - Decided in favor of the assessee
Issues:
Levy of penalty u/s.271C of the I.T. Act for non-deduction of tax on interest income under section 194A. Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty u/s.271C for non-deduction of tax on interest income The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin addressed the issue of penalty imposition under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for the non-deduction of tax on interest income as required under section 194A. The case involved M/s. Muthoot Bankers, Ernakulam, appealing against the penalty imposed by the Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) for not deducting tax on interest income of Rs. 9,50,05,000. The assessee argued that the non-deduction was not deliberate, citing a bonafide omission due to the large volume of transactions within the group. The assessee contended that since the recipients had paid tax on the interest amount, there was no loss to the government. The Tribunal noted that similar penalties had been deleted in the case of the assessee's sister concern by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. However, the penalty was imposed by the Jt.CIT and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Arguments and considerations The assessee's counsel argued that penalty should be deleted based on precedents where penalties were not automatic for non-deduction or short deduction of tax. It was highlighted that all recipients had paid tax on time, and the interest portion was disclosed in the return of income, demonstrating bonafide intent. The Tribunal emphasized that deduction of tax at source is a crucial tax collection method, imposing obligations on the assessee to deduct and remit tax to the government. However, the Tribunal also considered reasonable causes for non-deduction, citing precedents where penalties were not levied when there was a genuine reason for the default. The Tribunal referenced decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court where penalties were deleted due to no loss of revenue and reasonable cause for non-deduction. Issue 3: Tribunal's decision After evaluating the arguments and legal provisions, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where penalties were not automatic for non-deduction cases and where reasonable causes were accepted. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's case did not involve repeated offenses, and there was no loss to the revenue due to timely tax payments by the recipients. By considering the bonafide intent of the assessee and the absence of deliberate defiance of tax laws, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the penalty under section 271C. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of considering reasonable causes for non-deduction of tax and the absence of loss to the revenue in penalty imposition cases under the Income Tax Act.
|
