2008 (8) TMI 142 - HC - Income Tax

Failure to deduct TDS from the reimbursement of expenditure made to its non-resident consultant-companies assessee contend that it had deducted taxes on behalf of the non-resident companies on the payments made to them it was under the bona fide belief that the amount spent towards accommodation and conveyance of the officers/employees of the non-resident companies was not required to be treated as a part of their income - penalty u/s 201 is set aside - interest u/s 201(1A) is confirmed

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to concurrent findings of lower courts on order passed under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.
- Justification of Assessing Officer in passing order under section 201.
- Justification of levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, a public sector company, challenged the order passed by the lower courts under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The company had contracts with non-resident companies for technical know-how and consultancy, where it also reimbursed expenses incurred by these companies in India. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings as tax was not deducted at source for reimbursement, leading to penalties under sections 201 and 201(1A). The appellant argued that it believed no tax was required for reimbursement. The High Court found that the authorities did not properly consider the appellant's explanation, thus setting aside the penalty under section 201 in favor of the appellant.

Regarding the justification of the Assessing Officer in passing the order under section 201, the High Court observed that the company, being wholly owned by the State of Karnataka, had deducted taxes for major payments to non-resident companies but omitted small amounts for reimbursement under a bona fide belief. The court accepted the appellant's explanation, emphasizing that penalty under section 201 for undeducted tax on reimbursement should be set aside.

On the issue of levying interest under section 201(1A), the court analyzed the provisions of sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant argued that if not liable for penalty, interest should not be levied. However, the court held that penalty and interest are distinct, with interest being mandatory even if penalty proceedings are dropped. The court concluded that the sections are independent, rejecting the appellant's contention. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, confirming the order levying interest under section 201(1A) and setting aside the penalty under section 201.