9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Short deduction of tax at source u/s 201(1). 2. Treatment of conveyance reimbursement as salary. 3. Invocation of machinery provisions u/s 192 and 201(1). 4. Bona fide belief of the appellant regarding tax deduction. 5. Charging of interest u/s 201(1A). Summary: Issue 1: Short deduction of tax at source u/s 201(1) The learned CIT(A) upheld the ACIT's order alleging short deduction of tax at source u/s 201(1) and deeming the appellant as an assessee in default. The assessee argued that the reimbursements for conveyance were made against declarations from employees and were considered tax-exempt u/s 10(14). The Tribunal noted that the employer's duty is to deduct tax from the salary and pay it to the Government. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee acted in bona fide belief based on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars, and thus, the provisions of section 201(1) were not attracted. Issue 2: Treatment of conveyance reimbursement as salary The CIT(A) treated the conveyance reimbursement as salary liable to deduction of tax at source, contrary to the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10(14). The Tribunal observed that the reimbursement was not part of the employment agreement and was made for administrative convenience. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions, including the case of Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd., which held that conveyance allowance for commuting between residence and office is not in the nature of salary. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's belief in not deducting tax was bona fide. Issue 3: Invocation of machinery provisions u/s 192 and 201(1) The CIT(A) invoked the machinery provisions of sections 192 and 201(1) for tax collection. The Tribunal noted that these provisions are machinery provisions for tax recovery and that the employer is required to make a fair and honest estimate of the employee's income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct was based on a bona fide belief supported by judicial decisions and CBDT circulars, and thus, the invocation of these provisions was not justified. Issue 4: Bona fide belief of the appellant regarding tax deduction The CIT(A) treated the appellant's bona fide belief as mala fide. The Tribunal emphasized that the employer's duty is to deduct tax based on an honest estimate of the employee's income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's belief was based on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars, and thus, the conduct was not mala fide. The Tribunal held that the penalty u/s 201 was not leviable as the assessee acted in good faith. Issue 5: Charging of interest u/s 201(1A) The CIT(A) upheld the ACIT's order charging interest u/s 201(1A). The Tribunal, however, noted that since the penalty u/s 201 was not leviable, the interest u/s 201(1A) was also not chargeable. The Tribunal deleted the interest levied under section 201(1A). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all 18 appeals filed by the assessee, concluding that the penalties u/s 201(1) and the interest u/s 201(1A) were not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the bona fide belief of the assessee based on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars, and held that the conveyance reimbursement was not part of the salary.
|
