9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1184 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271C - order u/s 201(1) - assessee purchased two immovable properties on which no TDS was deducted u/s 194-IA - assessee submitted that the seller of the aforesaid two properties are regularly assessed to tax and they have disclosed income on sale of the aforesaid properties in their return of income and paid taxes - HELD THAT - There seems to be a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee in not deducting taxes at source u/s 194-IA - assessee has also furnished relevant documents in support of the fact that the recipients/payees have duly reflected the sale consideration in their respective returns of income have and have also paid taxes thereon. Therefore, it is evident that there is no loss to the Revenue on account of non-reduction of taxes at source by the assessee. Further, it is seen that the assessee has also paid interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source in the instant facts. As decided in Bank of Nova Scotia 2016 (1) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT held that when the assessee s conduct is not contumacious, then penalty under Section 271C of the Act is liable to be vacated. Supreme Court of India made the following observation in the Case of M/s Eli Lilly Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ors. 2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT with regards to reasonable cause for failure to deposit tax deducted at source held that only those persons will be liable to penalty who do not have good and sufficient reason for not deducting tax and burden, of course, is on such person to prove such good and sufficient reason. Thus as there is a bona fide mistake on part of the assessee in not deducting taxes at source at time of purchase of aforesaid two properties, coupled with the fact that the recipients/sellers have duly accounted for the sale consideration in their respective returns of income and hence, there is no loss to the Revenue, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case for deleting the levy of penalty u/s 271C - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the CIT(A), NFAC's order. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271C r.w.s. 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Adequacy of opportunity for the assessee to be heard. 4. Consideration of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Requirement of an order under Section 201(1) before initiating proceedings under Section 271C. 6. Consideration of replies filed in response to the show cause notice. 7. Consideration of the adjournment sought by the appellant. 8. Legality and adherence to principles of natural justice. Summary: 1. Validity of the CIT(A), NFAC's order: The assessee challenged the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, claiming it to be "bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case." 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271C r.w.s. 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The CIT(A), NFAC upheld the penalty of Rs. 4,53,400/- imposed under Section 271C. The assessee argued that the sellers had disclosed the income from the sale of properties and paid taxes, and a certificate from a chartered accountant was provided. However, the Assessing Officer rejected this contention, stating that non-deduction of tax made the assessee liable for penalty and interest. 3. Adequacy of opportunity for the assessee to be heard: The assessee claimed that the CIT(A), NFAC passed the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. However, the CIT(A) noted that sufficient opportunities were provided but not availed by the assessee. 4. Consideration of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The CIT(A) did not accept the argument that the sellers' payment of taxes should protect the assessee from penalty, emphasizing the requirement to deduct tax at source as per Section 194IA. 5. Requirement of an order under Section 201(1) before initiating proceedings under Section 271C: The assessee argued that no order under Section 201(1) was passed before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271C. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, indicating that the failure to deduct and deposit tax warranted the penalty. 6. Consideration of replies filed in response to the show cause notice: The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, noting that the assessee did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the default despite filing replies to the show cause notice. 7. Consideration of the adjournment sought by the appellant: The assessee contended that the adjournment sought for the hearing was not considered. The CIT(A) maintained that sufficient opportunity was provided. 8. Legality and adherence to principles of natural justice: The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to show reasonable cause for the default, and the order was not against the principles of natural justice. Judgment: The Tribunal observed that there was a bona fide mistake by the assessee in not deducting taxes at source. The recipients had reflected the sale consideration in their returns and paid taxes, causing no loss to the Revenue. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271C was not warranted due to the assessee's bona fide belief and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.
|
