9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 989 - HC - Income TaxTDS liability - payments made to Channel Providers u/Sec. 194C OR u/Sec. 194J - whether ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in holding that the payments made by the assessee to Channel Providers were liable for deduction of tax at source u/Sec. 194C and not u/Sec. 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the said issue was not before them and the assessee has only assailed the penalty ? - Held that - We find merit in the arguments of counsel for the appellant-revenue that the ITAT was not required to decide whether the amount paid was liable to be deducted u/Sec. 194J or 194C but whether on non-deduction of TDS, penalty was leviable u/Sec. 271C of the Act or not. It has not been disputed that fault of the assessee-respondent was detected only on account of survey carried out by the department. However, this issue needs to be gone into by the ITAT once again. Therefore, we quash & set aside the order of the ITAT impugned herein and remit the matter back to the ITAT for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law on merits after affording hearing to the parties without being influenced or inhibited by any of the observations made herein above. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under Sec. 194C and Sec. 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Justification of penalty imposition for non-deduction of tax at source; Consideration of facts and circumstances by the ITAT; Applicability of TDS on payments made to Channel Providers. Issue-wise detailed analysis: 1. Interpretation of Sec. 194C and Sec. 194J: The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of provisions under Sec. 194C and Sec. 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had to determine whether the payments made by the assessee to Channel Providers were liable for deduction of tax at source under Sec. 194C or Sec. 194J. The ITAT observed discrepancies in the TDS amounts deposited by the assessee, leading to a debate on the correct section applicable. 2. Justification of penalty imposition: The imposition of a penalty under Sec. 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was a crucial aspect of the case. The AO had imposed a penalty on the assessee for not deducting TDS, despite the assessee's explanation that the omission was inadvertent and due to a lack of awareness regarding TDS provisions. The CIT(A) and ITAT subsequently deleted the penalty, emphasizing the bonafide belief of the assessee and the immediate deposit of the tax liability upon being made aware of the default. 3. Consideration of facts and circumstances by the ITAT: The appellant-Revenue contended that the ITAT did not delve into the issue in a detailed manner and merely relied on the findings of the CIT(A). The ITAT's lack of reasoning and independent analysis was highlighted, leading to the argument that the order was perverse and required further consideration. The respondent-assessee, on the other hand, argued that both the CIT(A) and ITAT had thoroughly examined the issue, considering the facts and law before concluding that the penalty imposition was unwarranted. 4. Applicability of TDS on payments to Channel Providers: The case stemmed from a survey operation revealing that the assessee, a partnership firm dealing in channel transmission, had not been deducting TDS on payments to channel providers as required by law. The issue of whether the payments should have been subject to TDS under Sec. 194C or Sec. 194J was central to the dispute. The subsequent deposit of TDS by the assessee post-survey, along with the explanations provided, formed the basis of the arguments presented before the appellate authorities. In conclusion, the High Court found merit in the arguments raised by the appellant-Revenue regarding the need for a reconsideration of the matter by the ITAT. The Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the case back to the ITAT for a fresh consideration of the facts and circumstances, emphasizing the importance of a detailed analysis and adherence to legal provisions. The parties were directed to appear before the ITAT for further proceedings.
|
