9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee together had a total cash balance of ₹ 6 lakhs only. These facts were not disputed by the Learned Departmental Representative. In other words, the explanation of the assessee that on account of cash crunch, remittance of TDS into Government account could not be made has not been rebutted. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). We therefore, uphold the same and dismiss these appeals of the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.658/Hyd/2015, ITA No.659/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2015 - SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri M.Sitaram For The Respondent : Shri S.Rama Rao ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial year 2011-12, was remitted by the assessee, belatedly in June, 2012 and interest under S.201(1A) was not remitted even till date and hence, it is a fit case for imposition of penalty, and accordingly levied a penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT (Amritsar Bench) in the case of Kapsons Industries Ltd. V/s. ITO, wherein the Bench held that tax deposited belatedly after the due date will not absolve the default for which penalty is imposed. 3. Similarly, in the financial year 2012-13, the amount which was not remitted to the Government Account, though tax was deducted, was quantified at ₹ 62,61,048 and interest under S.201(1A) to the tune of ₹ 4,15,180, having not been paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e delay in remittance of TDS, penalty could not be levied under S.221 of the Act. (a) CIT V/s. Smt. Vijayanthimala (108 ITD 882)-Mad. (b) CIT V/s. Dadu Vala Co. (170 ITR 491)-Raj. Detailed arguments were advanced before the CIT(A), explaining as to how the assessee company had to suffer on account of cash crunch in the form of delay in payment of salaries, professional fee to doctors and staff by which assessee could not retain quality professional and staff and in turn, affecting the patient inflow etc. It was also contended that penalty cannot be levied for non-payment of interest, since tax and interest are different in character, whereas the definition of tax under S.2(43) does not cover interest and penalty , und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Departmental Representative submitted that mere cash crunch cannot be considered as a reasonable cause and the Assessing Officer is justified in levying penalty under S.221 of the Act, which is only in addition to the arrears of payment of tax deducted. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (377 ITR 774), wherein Court observed that penalty under S.221 is imposable even if tax has been paid before the initiation of penalty proceedings. However, when pointed out that when there is good and sufficient reason, the same requires to be considered, Learned Departmental Representative submitted hat mere non-availability of cash cannot be treated as a valid cause beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
