2017 (10) TMI 768 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271C - TDS has been deducted by assessee under 194J instead of section 194C - short deduction of tds - reasonable cause - Held that - In our considered view, levy of penalty under section 271C for failure to deduct tax at source is not automatic. In order to bring in application of section 271C in backdrop of overriding non obstante clause in section 273B, absence of reasonable cause, existence of which has to be established is sine qua non. No doubt initial burden is on the assessee to show that there existed reasonable cause to substantiate failure to deduct tax at source. There existed a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source from payments made to U P Jal Nigam on the mobilisation fees paid (being reimbursement of expenses on actual cost) within meaning of section 273B, and accordingly no penalty under section 271C is exigible. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee on merits stands allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) as being bad in law.
2. Dispute over the imposition of penalty under Section 271C without reasonable cause.
3. Argument against the imposition of penalty due to the absence of revenue loss.
4. Dismissal of the ground related to the limitation on imposing the penalty.
5. Failure to consider relevant judicial pronouncements.
6. General request to modify grounds of appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant contested the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) as being legally flawed. The grounds raised for various assessment years were similar, challenging the validity of the order.

Issue 2: The dispute centered around the imposition of penalty under Section 271C without reasonable cause. The appellant argued that there was a bonafide belief and reasonable cause for the default committed, emphasizing the absence of revenue loss to justify the penalty.

Issue 3: The appellant contended that no penalty under Section 271C should be imposed due to the lack of revenue loss. The argument was based on the premise that there was no justification for penalizing the appellant under the said section.

Issue 4: The challenge to the dismissal of the ground related to the limitation on imposing the penalty was raised. The appellant argued that the order passed by Ld. A.O. imposing the penalty under Section 271C was barred by limitation, but this argument was not fully considered.

Issue 5: The appellant raised the issue of the Ld. CIT (A) not considering relevant judicial pronouncements, citing specific cases to support their argument. The appellant sought to emphasize the importance of these legal precedents in the decision-making process.

Issue 6: The general request made by the appellant to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal at any time up to the hearing was acknowledged but did not require specific adjudication.

In summary, the judgment addressed multiple issues raised by the appellant regarding the imposition of penalties under Section 271C for various assessment years. The analysis delved into the legal arguments, factual circumstances, and the application of relevant legal principles to determine the validity of the penalties imposed. The decision provided a detailed examination of each issue, ultimately partly allowing the appeals filed by the assessee based on the findings related to reasonable cause and the absence of a need for penalty under Section 271C.