9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co ordinate Bench, we delete the penalty imposed - Ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Penalty u/s 271C - failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source - HELD THAT:- The fact that the Assessing Officer has not passed any order under section 201(1) of the Act treating the assessee as an assessee in default has not been disputed by the Revenue. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative, it has been categorically held that without declaring the assessee as assessee in default under section 201(1) no penalty under section 271C of the Act can be imposed - We delete the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(2)(k) of the Act. Accordingly, he proceeded to impose penalty of various amounts depending upon the quantum of delay in different quarters as under: S. no. Form no. Qrtr. F.Y. RPR no. Due Date Date of Filing Delay Tax Amt. deducted (in `) Max. Penalty leviable (in `) 1. 26Q Q1 2009 10 30170200345106 15.07.09 14.07.11 729 61,562 61,562 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted penalty imposed by holding that there is no malafide intention of the assessee to filed the TDS statement belatedly. Thus, he submitted, the issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee. 7. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts discussed above, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for different quarters of the financial year 2009 10 due to delay in filing of TDS statements. However, while deciding assessee s appeals for the first three quarters of the financial year 2009 10, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax was not deducted. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee imposed penalty of ₹ 1,31,533, under section 271C. 12. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 13. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, without declaring the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot impose penalty under section 271C of the Act. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions: i) ACIT v/s Sri Chaitnya Educational Trust, ITA no.1156 1163/ Hyd./2016, dated 30.05.2018; and ii) CIT v/s H.P. State Electricity Board (H.P. HC). 14. We have cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
