2017 (10) TMI 1316 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s. 271C - assessee in default - deduction of tds u/s 194J or 194C on services provided - bonafide belief - Held that - Assessee in fact deducted tax at 2% under the provisions of Section 194C on the reason that the agreements entered were contractual in nature and not for providing technical services. By virtue of the amendment brought to Section 201(1) by insertion of proviso w.e.f. 01-07-2012 demands u/s. 201(1) cannot be raised if the deductee has satisfied that it has included the income and remitted the taxes. Therefore whether it is deduction u/s. 194C or 194-J since the deductee has admitted the incomes and paid taxes thereon the question of short deduction or non-remittance of tax does not arise in this case. In fact there were no demands u/s. 201(1) so as to levy penalty u/s. 271C. The provisions of Section 273B are applicable as assessee has a reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax at 10% as against 2% it has deducted. In fact the opinion of the AO has not yet become final as the issue of levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) itself is being restored to the file of AO for fresh examination in appeals (2017 (11) TMI 191 - ITAT HYDERABAD). Considering all we can only say that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the penalties. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Deletion of penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years based on the nature of services provided and tax deduction requirements.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the deletion of penalties levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for different assessment years. The primary issue revolved around whether the penalties were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) based on the nature of services provided and the corresponding tax deduction obligations.

2. The case involved an assessee who was a trust running educational institutions. Following a survey, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the services provided were technical in nature, requiring a higher tax deduction rate under section 194J instead of the lower rate deducted under section 194C. Consequently, the AO raised demands and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271C for various assessment years.

3. The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee, relevant legal principles, and previous orders while deciding to delete the penalties. Notably, the CIT(A) partially allowed the demands raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A), leading to the deletion of penalties for non-compliance with tax deduction provisions.

4. The Revenue contended that the penalties should not have been deleted as the assessee failed to deduct and remit taxes as required by law. However, the assessee argued that there was no demand under section 201(1) for certain years and that there was a genuine belief regarding the applicable tax deduction sections, supported by contractual agreements and legal principles.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, legal arguments, and relevant case law. It noted that the assessee had deducted taxes at the rate applicable under section 194C based on the nature of agreements, and the demands under section 201(1) were not raised due to the deductee's compliance with tax remittance. Therefore, the question of penalty under section 271C did not arise.

6. Referring to a judgment by the Delhi High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of reasonable cause for non-compliance with tax deduction provisions. It found that the assessee's actions were based on a misconceived belief rather than malice or negligence, justifying the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A).

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalties, citing the presence of reasonable cause and the ongoing examination of interest levy under section 201(1A). The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds, concluding that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the penalties.

8. In conclusion, all appeals were dismissed, affirming the deletion of penalties under section 271C for the respective assessment years. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on October 31, 2017.