9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme was not subject to TDS. We have noted that in the case of Muthoot Bankers, [2011 (9) TMI 638 - ITAT COCHIN ], it was held that no penalty is leviable if there is a bona fide omission in not deducting the tax at source. We have also examined the case laws as indicated by learned Sr.D.R. but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, those case laws are distinguishable on fact and law; hence, not helpful to the Revenue Department. Resultantly, we hereby affirm the view taken by learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.625, 626 & 627/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2014 - SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vation of the AO was that as per the provisions of Section 192(1), where any person is responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head salaries shall at the time of payment, deduct income tax. Before us an order of ITAT A Bench Ahmedabad for the years under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2009-10 in the quantum proceedings, bearing ITA No.3059 and 3061/Ahd/2009, dated 30th of September, 2011 has been filed wherein it was held that the assessee was required to deduct the tax, however, it was found that the computation of short deduction u/s.201(1) was made on a flat basis of maximum margin rate. It was directed to re-compute the short deduction u/s.201(1) of IT Act. As far as the levy of interest u/s.201(1A), it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the appellant's contention that it was a bona fide mistake on the grounds that the appellant had not surrendered the mistake committed by it before the AO before the order u/s. 201 201(1A) was passed but had agitated and the matter was carried to the first appellate stage and then to the appellate tribunal. This cannot be the sole ground for imposition of penalty under the Act. Levy of penalty u/s. 271G is not automatic. Before levying penalty the concerned officer should prove that the failure referred to in the concerned provision was without a reasonable or sufficient cause and the appellant deliberately defied the provision of law. In this case there was neither the case of mala fide intention nor that of negligent intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has rectified this error and has been deducting tax at source regularly from such reimbursements. Penal provision should be construed strictly and no material has been brought on record by the AO to the effect that the appellant deliberately defied the provisions of law. Therefore keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, the penalty order u/s. 271C is cancelled. 3. From the side of the appellant-Revenue, learned Sr.D.R., Mr. O.P. Batheja appeared and placed reliance on the statement of facts and the case laws cited as per the grounds of appeal. Copies of those judgments have also been placed before us. 4. From the side of the respondent-Assessee, learned AR, Mr. M.K. Patel appeared and supported the order of learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
