9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. In all these appeals, common issues are involved, the only difference is in the amount of the penalty which is different for each of the years. The grounds raised in ITA No.3846/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 read as under: "1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 45,356/- u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not upholding the ground of appeal and contention of the appellant that - 1) The impugned order of penalty is barred by limitation under the proviso to clause (a) of s. 275(1) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease agreements. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant did not have a reasonable cause for non deduction of tax u/s 1941 of the Act from the annual lease rent paid under the aforesaid ninety-year land lease agreements. The alleged non-deduction of tax u/s 1941 is being vehemently disputed in appeal by the appellant before the Hon'ble ITAT where the appellant believes that it will succeed in its view and where the appellant believes that it will be held on the facts and law involved that no deduction of tax u/s 194I was called for in this case. 6. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is based on erroneous view and/or non- appreciation of the facts and law involved without properly considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts was a subject matter of the departmental appeals in ITA Nos. 4837 to 4839/Del/2015 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 wherein vide order dated 23.11.2017, it has been held as under: "3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 31.08.2017 in ITA No.4279 to 4281/Del/2015 etc., the Tribunal has held the assessee liable for deduction of tax at source in respect of Lease rent and the liability in respect of Interest payment has been has been deleted. A copy of such order is placed on page 99 onwards of the paper book. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012), a copy of which is available at page 72 onwards of the paper book, has held that payment of lease premium in respect of property on which development of the area of land was allowed, cannot convert lease premium into tenancy as per section 194-I of the Act. It is an admitted position that the assessee got possession of the land somewhere in the year 2008 and started paying rent without any deduction of tax at source. It was only pursuant to Survey carried out in the year 2014 that the assessee was held to be liable for deduction of tax at source in respect of such lease rent payment. The fact that the assessee did not deduct tax at source from the lease rental payments in preceding years, is not disputed. 7. Section 273B of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
