9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax (TDS) [ 2012 (5) TMI 488 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] and also various orders of the Tribunal, it has been held that where TDS was paid by the assessee or the required tax was paid by the deductee, the assessee should not be held to be in default. Only interest on delayed payment under section 201(1A) of the Act can be charged. In the light of these decisions, where the assessee has made payment of TDS though late, he cannot be held to be in default and so, there is no question of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act - We allow the appeal of the assessee and cancel the penalty levied under section 271C - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri. A. D. Jain, Vice President And Shri T. S. Kapoor, Accountant Member For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order dated 31.10.2018, with the submission that at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Authorized Representative of the assessee had been under a bona fide belief that it was the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 512/LKW/2018 against the order passed by the CIT(A)-I, Lucknow, on 26.04.2018, which was fixed for hearing, and not the penalty appeal in ITA no.16/LKW/2018, as the original notice fixing the appeal on the date of hearing was misplaced, and consequently, the Authorized Representative argued the matter in respect of the said quantum appeal in ITA No.512/LKW/2018, relating to the order dated 26/4/2018, passed by the CIT(A)-I, Lucknow against the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2011-12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very bad phase and the Chairman of the group, alongwith two senior Directors, were confined to jail pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, since March, 2014, which had disrupted the regular business activities of the group and hence caused the delay in the deposit of the tax. 5. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee, observing that the TDS was deducted by the assessee during the financial year 2014-15 and it was deposited on 28.10.2016, i.e, after a delay of almost two years. He, accordingly, held the imposition of penalty under section 271C of the Act, to be justified. However, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to suitably modify the amount of penalty imposed, as per the default made by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the fact that the parent group of the assessee society was passing through a very bad phase and the Chairman of the group, alongwith two senior Directors, were confined to jail pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, since March, 2014, which had disrupted the regular business activities of the group and hence caused the delay in the deposit of the tax. 9. We have carefully perused the relevant provisions of section 271C of the Act and we find that penalty under section 271C of the Act can only be levied where the assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, or pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under (i) sub-section (2) of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
