2011 (8) TMI 1163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the fact that the C.A. who audited the accounts of the assessee under Section 44AB did not point out any infirmity on account of non-deduction of TDS otherwise, all the relevant accounts were adduced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, when the Tax audit report also did not point out the TDS default to the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the mistake made by assessee was bonafide and the expl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Per: MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. This Tax Appeal is preferred against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT for short) dated 22.01.2010, proposing following question of law for consideration of this Court. Whether Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in canceling the penalty of ₹ 7,42,707/levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act? 2. To state briefly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act. 4. On hearing learned Counsel Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt and on examining the orders of adjudicating authorities, it can be seen that Tribunal was of the opinion that due to ignorance of the provision containing in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee did not deduct TDS from the payment made to labour, transport and carting expenses. The Tribunal was also actuated by the fact that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X