2011 (2) TMI 1234 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271C - assessee had failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194-I of the Act - before the assessing officer they contended that M/s. Wipro Limited had paid the entire tax. Therefore it was under the impression that no TDS may be made - revenue contended that the cause shown by the assessee does not constitute sufficient cause so as to waive penalty under Section 273B Held that - If really no rent is paid as contended by the assessee and only in the course of audit proceedings on advice they made and entry and consequently the payee has paid the entire tax probably they can be given the benefit under Section 273B orders passed by all the authorities are hereby set aside matter is remanded to the assessing officer to give an opportunity to the assessee to put forth his case in writing or produce documents to substantiate his claim and thereafter to consider his case on merits

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against cancellation of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act.
- Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not deducting tax at source.
- Interpretation of Section 273B for waiving penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act. The case involved an assessee, formerly known as M/s. Wipro BT Ltd., who failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194-I of the Act on rental payments made to M/s. Wipro Limited, a group company. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271C, which was upheld in the appeal but set aside by the Tribunal based on the assessee's belief that the payee had already paid the tax, and subsequently, the rental payable was waived due to incurred losses.

2. The revenue contended that the assessee's explanation did not constitute sufficient cause to waive the penalty under Section 273B. On the contrary, the assessee argued that since there was no formal lease agreement and no actual rent payment, they made an entry in their accounts only during audit proceedings to comply with tax requirements. The payee then paid the tax, leading the assessee to believe that tax deduction was unnecessary.

3. The Court noted that the assessee did not present their case in writing or provide supporting documents during the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was based on oral submissions without proper substantiation. The Court emphasized the importance of producing requisite documents to substantiate the claim and directed the matter to be remanded to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to present their case with proper documentation.

4. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a reevaluation. The Court highlighted the necessity for the assessee to substantiate their claim with documents to ensure a fair assessment process in accordance with the law.