9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agrawal,D. Awasthi,S. Chopra,S. P. Kesharwani ORDER Challenging the order passed under Section 271-C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') levying penalty for short deduction of tax at source under the Act, present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is a State Government Department and is doing the work of construction of the roads and maintaining the governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds including that the petitioner is not included in the definition of a person as defined in Section 2(31) of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner is a department of State of U.P. and there is no personal interest of the Officer that the mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per levied by the authority concerned. It may be placed on record that in spite of sufficient opportunity granted to the respondents, the respondents have not filed counter affidavit controverting the above facts. On 29.09.2004, three weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit was granted but till date no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. There being no denial of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r legal obligation to consider the explanation given by the petitioner. But none of the authorities has considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no case for levying the penalty under Section 271-C of the Act has been made out as cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient. The impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
