Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 271C in Torque Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Acit(Tsd),, Ahmedabad on 24 June, 2022Matching Fragments
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.51,83,473/-
u/s.271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have ITA Nos.1815, 1816, 1817 & 1818/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17 confirmed penalty au/s.271C of the Act. The incorrect and illegal penalty so levied and confirmed be cancelled.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and on law in confirming the penalty of Rs.46,19,300/- (i.e. Rs.51,83,473 - Rs.5,64,173 excess considered by AO) u/s. 271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section 271C of the Act are applicable only when there is failure on part of assessee to deduct Tax as required under provisions of Chapter XVII-B and not on account of delayed payments of Tax Deducted. Only due to reasons beyond control and financial crunch, payment was made late by the Company, the said bonafide explanations were not considered neither by AO nor Ld. CIT(A). On facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty levied of Rs.46,19,300/- by invoking the provision of Section 271C of the Act ought to have been deleted. It may be held so now.
3. In ITA Nos.1817/Ahd/2018 & 1818/Ahd/2018 for A.Ys. 2016-17, similar grounds have been raised by the assessee except for the amounts in dispute. Therefore the same are not reproduced.
ITA Nos.1815, 1816, 1817 & 1818/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17
4. Firstly we are taking up ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16 wherein order under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed on 24.08.2016. The assessment order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 and thus the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.63,25,154/- for the TDS default for A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has deducted tax at source on various payments but had not deposited the same into Government account. The show cause notices for levy of penalty under Section 271C of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 was issued on 03.03.2016, 07.06.2016 and on 02.08.2016. The Chartered Accountant of the assessee filed details which were taken on record by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 24.08.2016 held that the assessee is liable to pay penalty of Rs.51,83,473/- being a sum equal to the amount of tax under Section 271C of the Act as the assessee failed to pay the deducted tax within the stipulated time.
8. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the submissions made before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act by the assessee. From the perusal of the penalty order, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that the assessee failed to pay the deducted tax within the stipulated time but from the perusal of the submissions ITA Nos.1815, 1816, 1817 & 1818/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17 of the assessee before the Assessing Officer it is seen that except the TDS on the interest payment to two parties the assessee has paid the TDS before the survey proceedings conducted at their premises as there was death of a person who was looking after the Income Tax matter of the Company which is mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the penalty order. These crucial facts were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Further, it is noticed that the payment of delayed TDS to the Government Treasury was not a negligent act on the part of the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, Section 271C of the Act is not properly invoked. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 189 Taxman 322 is applicable in the present case though the Section mentioned in that decision is Section 271(1)(c). Further, the CIT(A) has simplicitor confirmed the penalty without looking into the aspect that the levy of penalty was in excess of the default. Thus, the reasoning given by the CIT(A) is not just and proper. Hence, penalty levied under Section 271C of the Act needs to be deleted. ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for AY 2015-16 is allowed.