9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, being a reasonable cause, for non deduction of tax at source in respect of lease rent payment, magnetizes the provisions of section 273B. Considering the provisions of section 271C read with section 273B, we hold that the penalty imposed u/s 271C is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3846/Del/2015, ITA No. 3847/Del/2015 And ITA No. 3848/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM For The Assessee : Sh. Ashwani Kumar Garg, CA For The Revenue : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 30.04.2015 of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida. 2. Since, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) in respect of the main proceeding. 4) The appellate order-based extended limitation under the proviso (supra) becomes available only on the receipt of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the main proceeding. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not dealing with and adjudicating the substantial ground of appeal taken and argued on behalf of the appellant that the impugned penalty was imposed without hearing the appellant and without giving it the opportunity to show reasonable cause, as prescribed in sec. 273B, in violation of the fundamental and universal natural-jus rice principle of audi alteram partem. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the impugned penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds are raised the only difference in the amount of penalty. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the issue under consideration is squarely covered in assessee s favour vide order dated 23.11.2017 in ITA Nos. 4837 to 4839/Del/2015 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 in assessee s own case wherein the departmental appeals on the identical issues were dismissed. It was further submitted that the present appeals for the same assessment years had been filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also furnished the copy of the said order dated 23.11.2017 which is placed on record. 5. In his rival submissions, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ann.com 263 (Del). 5. Before considering the sustainability or otherwise of penalty u/s 271C in respect of Lease rent, it is necessary to record the relevant factual matrix. The assessee was given some land on lease for a period of 90 years. The assessee was free to make any construction on such land. Annual lease rent was paid for such land, which the assessee treated as not attracting the provisions of section 194-I. It is in respect of such payment of lease rent that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which was delivered on 16.02.2017. Assessment years under consideration are 2011-12 to 2013-14. Our attention has not been drawn towards any j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for making deduction of tax at source -, it becomes abundantly clear that the assessee entertained a bona fide belief that no tax withholding was required on lease rent payments. This belief, being a reasonable cause, for non deduction of tax at source in respect of lease rent payment, magnetizes the provisions of section 273B. Considering the provisions of section 271C read with section 273B, we hold that the penalty imposed u/s 271C is not sustainable. 8. Facts of the cross appeals for subsequent two assessment years, namely, 2012-13 and 2013-14 are, admittedly, similar. Following the view taken hereinabove, while upholding the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s 271C in respect of Interest payment, we order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
