9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 922 - HC - Income TaxLevy of penalty imposed under Section 271C - failure to deduct tax at source by Noida - Held that - In view of the dispute as to whether NOIDA is a Corporation exempt from liability of deduction of tax at source there was a reasonable cause for the respondent assessee not to deduct the tax at source. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs. G.M. (Telecom) BSNL 2014 (2) TMI 800 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the assessee was under a bonafide believe that tax was not liable to be deducted on commission/trade discount in view of decision in Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008 (3) TMI 355 - ITAT DELHI-A ). The Division Bench of this Court held that it was a reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax. This exactly is the position in the case at hand. Accordingly even in the light of the provisions of Section 273 B of the Act no penalty could have been imposed upon the respondent assessee under Section 271 C of the Act. The question framed above is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and it is held that the tribunal was justified in holding the penalty imposed under Section 271 C of the Act as the assessee not only had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source but also as NOIDA was exempt for payment of tax at source. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
Challenge to deletion of penalty under Section 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal based on failure to deduct tax at source. Analysis: The primary issue in the appeals before the Allahabad High Court was the validity of the deletion of the penalty imposed under Section 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty, prompting the appeals. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the tribunal was justified in its decision regarding the penalty. The respondent assessee, a bank, had fixed deposits in NOIDA and failed to deduct tax at source on the interest earned from these deposits, leading to the penalty under Section 271 C of the Act. However, the defense put forth was that NOIDA, being an Authority under the State Act, was exempt from tax deduction at source as per Section 194-A (1) of the Act. The High Court referred to a previous judgment in a similar case involving Canara Bank, where it was established that NOIDA, being a corporation under the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976, was indeed exempt from tax deduction at source. This precedent played a crucial role in the current case, as it was deemed that the respondent assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source on NOIDA's deposits. Furthermore, Section 273 B of the Act was cited, which states that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves reasonable cause for the failure to deduct tax at source under Section 271 C. In this context, the court found that the dispute over NOIDA's status as a Corporation exempt from tax deduction constituted a reasonable cause for the respondent's failure to deduct tax at source. Drawing parallels with a previous case involving G.M. (Telecom) BSNL, where a bonafide belief justified the failure to deduct tax, the court concluded that the respondent had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source. Consequently, in light of the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, the court upheld the tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under Section 271 C of the Act. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that there was a reasonable cause for the failure to deduct tax at source and that NOIDA's exemption from tax payment further supported the decision. The appeal challenging the penalty imposition was dismissed for lacking merit.
|
