9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and legal matrix brought out by the Ld. Representative for the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing Officer not to take any coercive measures to recover the outstanding demands. Meanwhile, the corresponding appeals of the assessee pending with the Tribunal shall be posted for hearing on an out-of-turn basis before the regular Bench on 02nd March, 2015, as announced in the open Court at the time of hearing. Since the aforesaid date of hearing was announced in the open Court in the presence of both the parties, the requirement of issuance of a formal notice of hearing is hereby dispensed with. The above order restraining the Assessing Officer from taking coercive measures shall operate for a period of six months fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer held the assessee-in-default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for not deducting tax at source on discount allowed to pre-paid distributors as according to him it was in the nature of commission falling within the purview of section 194H of the Act. It was pointed out that appeals of the assessee relating to the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act were still pending for adjudication before the Tribunal and the stand of the assessee was that the impugned discount allowed to pre-paid distributors could not be considered as commission in terms of section 194H of the Act. It was also pointed out that having regard to certain judicial precedents even if the impugned discount allowed to the pre-paid di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year Date of Order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act Date of Order passed u/s 271C of the Act Decision prevailing during that period Date of Order of the said decisions 2006-07 2007-08 24-Mar-11 21-Jan-14 Korean Air vs. Dy.CIT (Mum) (ITA No.1979/Mum/2003) 28-Dec-04 2007-08 2008-09 24-Mar-11 21-Jan-14 2008-09 2009-10 19-Mar-12 21-Jan-14 DCIT vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. (123 ITD620) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-Aug-14 to demonstrate that at the relevant point of time when assessee was to deduct the tax at source, the judicial pronouncements prevailing were in favour of the proposition that no tax was deductible in terms of section 194H of the Act qua the impugned payments. Therefore, it is sought to be pointed out that under these circumstances, assessee had a good prima-facie case to demonstrate that if at all there was a failure to deduct the tax at source u/s 194H of the Act, such failure was for a reasonable cause and therefore no penalty u/s 271C of the Act is leviable. Coming to the quantum of outstanding demand, the Ld. Representative pointed out that the CIT(A) in para 19 of his order has directed the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 14,09,90,213 5,77,53,324 4. In sum and substance, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that assessee has a good prima-facie case to succeed with respect to the appeals pending with the Tribunal on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act and therefore the outstanding demands be stayed and the appeals of the assessee be heard on an out-of-turn basis. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR has not disputed the factual matrix brought out by the Ld. Representative for the assessee but it was contended that the efficacy of the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act, which stands confirmed by the CIT(A), can be tested only after it is crystallized as to whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
