9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... catory; such deposit now does not require the operation of provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act i.e. issue was debatable at relevant point of time. Further, Assessing Officer on his own through rectification u/s. 154 of the Act allowed the claim of expenditure in subsequent year. Assessee bonafidely made the claim, which cannot be said to be furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in deleting penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2154/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2014 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav And Shri Anil Chaturvedi,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent : Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. ORDER Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, J.M: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act dated 28.12.2007. Against the disallowance of ₹ 22,58,374/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad. The CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad vide order dated 28.05.2008, sustained the addition to the extent of ₹ 19,58,374/-. (b) In response to the show-cause notice issued, for penalty proceedings the assessee submitted written submission dated 03.03.2010, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: .. It is submitted that the disallowance was made on high technical ground. Disallowance of ₹ 19,58,374/- on account of payment of TDS was not made to the government account before 31.03.2005 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. However, the said amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the assessee- (ia) any interest , commission or brokerage, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub contractor, being resident , for carrying out any work ( including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction , has not been paid during the previous year, or in the subsequent year before the expiry of the time prescribed under subsection (1) of section 200: Section 200(1) provides as under: Any person deducting any sum in accordance with [the foregoing provisions of this Chapter] shall pay within the prescribed time, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Tax). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: As regards the levy of penalty under section 18(l)(c), the plea of the assessee was that the assessee was under the bona fide impression The only explanation of the assessee was that he was under the bona fide impression that the assets were not taxable for these years. What has to be decided therefore is bona fide of this erroneous impression. Going beyond well known principle that the ignorance of law is no excuse, it has to be pointed out that the assessee could not point out any material fact showing that it was prevented from getting to know the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1983. Even in this case the assessee has not proved the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income of ₹ 13,01,223/-. Assessing Officer noticed that though payments exceeding ₹ 50,000/- in aggregate to 11 different parties as listed in para 3 of assessment order was made through out the year. TDS was made u/s.194C and deposited in Government account on 17.05.2005. same were disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia). The stand of assessee has been that there was no contract with labourers. However, Assessing Officer disallowed the same. In quantum appeal, matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority who has given part relief. Assessing officer levied penalty of ₹ 7,16,618/- under the provision of Section 271(1)(c). In appeal, CIT(A) observed that assessee in its books of account has reflected all the transactions in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
