9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is suffering from financial difficulty. Hence, the assessee s argument thus cannot be constituted as explanation to say that the assessee is suffering from financial difficulty unless the assessee substantiates it with evidence. Even if there is financial difficulty, it is the duty of the assessee to substantiate the financial hardship by placing necessary evidence. In the present case, there is no material to suggest the financial difficulty of the assessee. The other grievance of the assessee is that when the assessee has remitted the deducted amount with interest before the detection by the Department, hence penalty cannot be levied. This contention of the assessee cannot be considered as reasonable cause and there is delay of remittance of deposited amount to the Government and payment of interest is compensatory in nature and in this case, there was a continuous delay of 4 years and the belated depositing of deducted amount every year and the assessee is a willful defaulter. Being so, we are inclined to confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. AR made a plea before us that in one assessment year, 2010-11, penalty levied was more than the tax which the assessee failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 194I, 194C, 194J etc. and analysis of the statement would show that the remittances for the first quarter of the Financial Year 2008-09 were made on 25/05/2009 and 31/07/2009 and the total amount deposited was ₹ 3,27,577/-. 3.3 Similarly, the Ld. AR submitted that for the second quarter, the remittances were made on 30/06/2009 and 31/07/2009 and the amount remitted was ₹ 3,43,955/- . Likewise for the third quarter, the remittances were made on 1.7.2009 and 317.2009 aggregating to ₹ 3,36,225/- and the delay in remittance ranged from 190 days and above. As far as the last quarter was concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the number of delay ranged from 19 day onwards which was shown separately in the tabulation. 3.4 The Ld. AR submitted that for each of these quarters for the delay in remittance, interest under section 201(1A) was charged and such interest was also remitted before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271C of the I.T. Act. 3.5 According to the Ld. AR, the action under section 271C was belated by almost four years. The order imposing penalty was passed on 15/11/2013 with respect to all the four Financial Years. The Ld. AR submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 274 r.w.s. 271C, the entire TDS was remitted. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the penalty levied was illegal and without justification and prayed that the recovery of the demand may be stayed pending disposal of the appeal. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that this is not a case where penalty is to be levied merely because for the sake of it. The fact that interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act is levied, does not mitigate the gravity of the default of belated deposit of tax, or otherwise absolve the assessee from the penalty. The Ld. DR relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. (321 ITR 231) wherein it was held that levy of interest under section 201(1A) is not in the nature of penalty. He further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (317 ITR 1) and Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (306 ITR 277) wherein it was held that penalty is a civil liability and the offence need not have been willful for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution. According to the Ld. DR, the pre-condition imposed in section 273B of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government account. Section 271C was introduced by the Direct Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1.4.1989 providing for penalty for failure to deduct or remit tax under Chapter XVIIB, sub-section (2) of section 115(O) and section 194B of the Act. The relevant portion of section 271C is extracted below: "Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source u/s. 271C (1) If any person fails to: (a) deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB; or (b) pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under: (i) sub-section (2) of section 115O; or (ii) the second proviso to section 194B, then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner." 6. There is default in complying with the requirement u/s. 271C of the Act with reference to payment of tax deducted to the Government as follows: A.Y. Amount 2008-09 ₹ 11,16,260 2009-10 ₹ 2,16,289 2010-11 ₹ 9,46,936 2011-12 ₹ 5,00,517 ₹ 27,80,002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
