9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 319 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271C - non deduction of tds - assessee admitted the liability and paid the tax with interest - Held that - After the survey was conducted, the Assessee voluntarily filed revised its computation of tax and interest on 13th January 1999 without raising any dispute and without waiting for any demand or penalty notice. The ITAT held that in view of the decisions of this Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan (2001 (3) TMI 23 - DELHI High Court) in which the penalty under Section 271C had been deleted in similar circumstances, there was no legal infirmity in the order of the CIT (A). Non-deduction of tax from the salaries paid to expatriate employees outside India - non compliance u/s 192 - no intention of concealing any income or TDS - penalty was leviable under Section 271C - reasonable cause for the failure to deduct TDS - Held that -Thus as the Respondent-Assessee had discharged the burden of showing reasonable cause for the failure to deduct TDS, the Court is not persuaded to entertain the present appeals. The question that has been framed does not require to be answered for the simple reason that the decision of this Court cannot possibly be contrary to what has been held by the Supreme Court on merits on the question of the liability of the Assessee to pay penalty under Section 271C of the Act.The Court declines to answer the question framed.- The appeals are dismissed
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Non-disclosure of relevant facts by the Department in various proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary legal question was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in law in holding that the CIT (A) had reviewed its earlier order dated 29th January 2003 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act, which only permits rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record. The ITAT concluded that the CIT (A) did not have the power to review its own orders and cannot do so indirectly. If aggrieved by the order dated 29th January 2003, the correct course for the Department was to challenge it before the ITAT. The CIT (A) could not rehear the same appeal repeatedly. 2. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The background facts reveal that the Assessee had not deducted tax at source as required under Section 192 of the Act for salaries paid to expatriate employees in Japan. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty under Section 271C for failure to deduct tax at source. The CIT (A) initially reversed this penalty, citing reasonable cause for non-deduction. However, the CIT (A) later suo motu passed an order under Section 154, rectifying the earlier order and confirming the penalty. The ITAT, in its order dated 2nd September 2004, held that the CIT (A) acted without jurisdiction in reviewing its own order under the guise of rectification. The Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly and Co. (India) P. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC), held that the penalty under Section 271C was not leviable if the Assessee had a reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of aggregation of income chargeable under the head "Salaries" was a nascent issue and not previously considered by the Court. The Assessee's bona fide belief that it was not obligated to deduct tax at source from the home salary paid by the foreign company was accepted as a reasonable cause. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the penalty proceedings under Section 271C. 3. Non-disclosure of relevant facts by the Department in various proceedings: The Department failed to inform the Court about the pendency of related appeals and the outcomes of various proceedings, leading to parallel tracks of litigation. The Department did not point out the additional facts taken note of by the CIT (A) when it dismissed the Department's appeals on 24th March 2006. The Court noted that the Department allowed proceedings to continue on two parallel tracks without making an effort to have the appeals heard together, which could have avoided contradictory judgments. Conclusion: In light of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 25th March 2009, which held that the Assessee had shown reasonable cause for failure to deduct TDS, the High Court declined to entertain the present appeals. The question framed did not require an answer as the decision of the High Court could not contradict the Supreme Court's judgment on the merits of the Assessee's liability to pay penalty under Section 271C of the Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
