9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 forconsideration of this Court: "i) did not the Appellate Tribunal err in law in proceeding on the assumption that there was continuous delay of four years and the belated deposit of deducted amount every year showed the assessee as a willful defaulter. ii) in the facts and circumstances of the case, should not the Statutory Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal has found that there was reasonable cause for the delay in remitting the tax and that no penalty was exigible u/S 271C since the entire tax along with interest was remitted long before the initiation of penalty proceedings? iii) is not the order Annexure A barred by limitation on account of inordinate delay? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 195 TAXMAN 323 (Ker)]. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Section 276B and Circular No.551 dated 23.1.1990. 4. Having considered the submissions made, we confess our inability to accept the case of the appellant. As we have already noticed, it is the admitted case of the parties that the tax was deducted at source and the same was remitted belatedly, though with interest. In such a case, the provisions of Section 271C of the Income Tax Act are fully applicable. In so far as the judgment of this Court in the U.S. Technologies International Private Limited (supra) is concerned, what is relevant is paragraph 4 thereof which reads thus: "The next question to be considered is the quantum of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty. Further, if full amount of tax with interest was paid before levy of penalty, we feel quantum reduction is called for by the AO. Therefore, we direct the AO to reconsider the quantum of penalty by giving one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish facts in the light of our observations above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of upholding the order of the Tribunal on the levy of penalty, but with direction to the AO to grant further reduction in penalty, if any new fact or circumstance is brought to the notice of the AO based on observations above or otherwise in terms of Section 273B of the Act." 5. Reading of the above paragraph shows that even Section 273B, providing for waiver or reduction of penalty is not attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
