2018 (3) TMI 36 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non- deduction of TDS on interest paid to Banks and NBFCs - Held that - Merely because the assessee-company had claimed deduction of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment which was not accepted by the Revenue, by itself, would not attract the levy of penalty. Mere disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS by itself may not be a ground to levy of penalty against the assessee-company. A.O. in the assessment order has initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order, the A.O. levied the penalty for concealment of income within the meaning of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c). The A.O. did not initiate the penalty proceedings for concealment of income. Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) would apply in the case of concealment of income and not in the case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, there is a contradictory findings given by the A.O. in the assessment order as well as in the penalty order. Merely because the assessee-company did not challenge the addition before Ld. CIT(A), is no ground to levy penalty against the assessee-company because it is well settled law that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent proceedings. It is not automatic in each and every case to levy penalty, if addition is sustained on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source on interest payments to NBFC Sector companies.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge against the penalty order for not deducting tax at source on interest payments made to NBFC Sector companies. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the interest amount under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of tax at source, initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

2. The assessee argued that TDS provisions were not applicable to payments made to reputed banks/NBFC companies under section 194A of the I.T. Act. The assessee claimed that no penalty should be levied as they made a bonafide belief error. They cited relevant legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing full disclosure and genuine belief.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that TDS was required on interest paid to NBFC companies and rejected the claim regarding payments to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and confirmed the penalty.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the disclosure made in the audit report, emphasizing no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. They referenced legal judgments supporting their argument that penalty should not be levied in such cases.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found that the assessee had made full disclosure of interest expenditure but failed to deduct TDS on payments to Banks and NBFCs. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed solely for non-deduction of TDS, not for concealment of income. Contradictory findings in the assessment and penalty orders were highlighted, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the case did not warrant a penalty, emphasizing that the mere disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS does not automatically lead to a penalty. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and canceled the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.