9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non deductible then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not validly imposable - AO is directed to delete the impugned penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6518//DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - Sh. S.V. Mehrotra, AM And Sh. C.M. Garg, JM For the Appellant : Shri. S.M. Mathur, CA For the Respondent : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR ORDER Per C. M. Garg, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi dated 05.01.2013 passed in first appeal No. 21/12-13 for AY 2009-10. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequently the AO corrected his mistake by passing order under section 154 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 04.03.2013 and penalty was rectified to ₹ 1,08,150/- . The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) which was also dismissed. Now the empty handed assessee is before this tribunal in this second appeal with the grounds as reproduced herein above. 2. We have heared arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the material placed before us on record inter-alia, quantum order, penalty order and impugned first appellant order. The Ld assessee s representative (AR) placing reliance on the order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC) submitted that mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above the Ld DR supported the penalty order as well was impugned first appellant order and contended that it was the duty of the assessee to deduct tax at source while making payments or crediting the same to the respective payees account and such failure attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On careful consideration above rival submissions of both the sides at the outset admittedly and undisputedly the impugned disallowance and addition was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, because the assessee failed to deduct and deposit due tax on the expenses claimed as commission, professional charges and accounting charges. In the light of this fact when we consider the dicta the preposition rendered by ITAT Delhi SMC- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for deduction of tax at source. Be that as it may, I am concerned with imposition and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which presupposes concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Here is a case in which the assessee neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. Deduction on account of M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. was claimed after making due payments. The dispute in only about deduction of nondeduction of tax at source from payment to M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. for which disallowance has been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Under no circumstance can such a disallowance be brought within the ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee made a proper disclosure about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
