9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act on the due date. It was, therefore, found liable to penalty under section 272A(2)(c) of the IT Act. Show-cause notice was issued In reply, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant he did Hot deduct the income-tax under section 194C on the payment made to M/s. S.D. Construction, Khunti, which worked as sub-contractor with the appellant It was added that M/s. S.D. Construction filed a letter before the appellant requesting not to deduct tax on the bills because the subcontractor was also working with the Bihar State Construction Corporation and tax was being deducted @ 2% on gross payment which was only to cover the tax liability of this sub-contractor. 3. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 206 were not applicable because the appellant had not deducted the income-tax at source under section 194C and, as such, the question of submission of the statement under section 206 did not arise. He added that the Assessing Officer could have initiated penalty proceedings in the case for the default of non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C but not for submission of the statement under section 206. He argued that initiation of proceedings under section 272A(2)(c) and levy of the impugned penalty was invalid and illegal. He pointed out that there was nothing in Form No. 26C to show that even when no tax at source had been deducted the statement under section 206 had to be submitted. The Id. counsel further submitted that si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose. 8.2 Again, the appellant was required to furnish statement under section 206 in due time which also he failed to submit to the Assessing Officer. 8.3 The two legal obligations cast upon the appellant under sections 194C and 206 were separate and independent. Separate penalties were, therefore, also provided for the two types for non-compliance to the requirement of section 194C and section 206. The plea of the appellant that since it had not deducted tax at source, it was not required to submit the statement under section 206, is wrong and unacceptable. The statement under section 206 had to be filed in the case because section 194C was applicable. Perusal of Form No. 26C (seerule 37 of the I.T. Rules) in which the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to presume and plead that the statement under section 206 is required to be submitted only when the tax at source has been deducted. 8.4 As regards the Id. counsel's plea that the impugned order was not valid because the Assessing Officer had not fixed a particular person as the Principal Officer in the present case of a Partnership Firm, we are of the view that this mistake would not make invalid the penalty order. Moreover, the Assessing Officer had issued the show-cause notice and passed the impugned penalty order against We Principal Officer of the firm. The Principal Officer has been defined in section 2(35) of the IT Act which says 'Principal Officer' used with reference to a local authority or a company or any other public body or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
