9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 307 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271-C - assessee failed to deduct on lease rent and interest paid to Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority u/s 194-I, 194-A - sufficient/reasonable cause as contemplated u/s.273-B for the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source - tribunal deleted the penalty imposed as no addition of tax at source could make prior to the year of survey on 24.2.2014 and no other order against the assessee required deduction of tax at source at that time when the assessee made payment of lease rental, was existing - HELD THAT - Apex Court in the case of NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NO.2) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND OTHERS 2018 (8) TMI 1374 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has opined that word 'rent' means any payment by whatever name called under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land and came to the conclusion that lease money or annual rent is rent within the meaning of section 194-I of the Act. The matter requires fresh consideration by the tribunal. We therefore remand the matter back to the tribunal and the matter remand shall be reconsidered by the tribunal within a period of three months from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order.
Issues:
1. Justification of deleting penalty under section 271-C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. 3. Sustainability of tribunal's order in light of the challenge by the department. Analysis: The High Court addressed the controversy in the appeals collectively, focusing on Income Tax Appeal no.63 of 2018 as the primary case. The department had filed this appeal against the tribunal's judgment and order dated 23.11.2007 for the assessment year 2011-12. The key questions revolved around the justification for deleting a penalty of ?7,55,18,885 imposed under section 271-C of the Act due to failure in deducting tax on lease rent and interest paid to a specific authority under sections 194-I and 194-A of the Act. The tribunal's decision to annul the penalty on the assessee was based on the provisions of section 273-B of the Act, which exempts penalty imposition in cases of reasonable cause. It was concluded that no prior tax deduction obligation existed before the year of survey in 2014, and no specific order required tax deduction at that time when the lease rental payment was made by the assessee. Notably, the Delhi High Court's judgment on treating lease money as rent was only delivered in 2017, imposing a tax deduction obligation on such payments. Furthermore, the Apex Court's ruling in the case of NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NO.2) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) clarified the definition of 'rent' under section 194-I of the Act, encompassing lease money or annual rent within its scope. Consequently, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the tribunal for fresh consideration within three months from the date of the order's issuance. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of without costs, emphasizing the need for the tribunal to reevaluate the matter in light of the recent legal interpretations and judgments provided by the Delhi High Court and the Apex Court, ensuring a comprehensive review of the tax deduction obligations concerning lease payments.
|
