Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,80,89,883/- imposed u/s. 271C though the deductor could not deny the fact it failed to deduct tax and deposit to Govt. account.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(a) was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271C though the Apex Court has clear verdict in the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) that willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability."

8. Ld. Sr. Dr, however, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mr. Thomas Muthoot, ITA No. 139 of 2013( arising out of order in 03.07.2015 and stated that merely good and sufficient reasons asked by the assessee cannot be the basis for deletion of penalty and it cannot be a plea that the assessee firm M/s. Height Insurance Services Ltd. AY 2009-10 has returned loss and not liable to pay any tax in view of the decision of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). When a query was put to ld. Sr. DR that there is no reasonable cause argued in the case of Mr. Thomas Muthoot, supra of Hon'ble Kerala High court but only issue was whether merely the other party has included the receipts in their income and paid taxes, will absolve the assessee from the rigors of provision of section 194C or sec. 194D of the Act i.e. the TDS provisions. The Ld. Sr. DR could not reply on this. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) and also Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. Ld. Sr. DR was again asked whether the decisions of Dharmendra Textiles Processor, supra and Mak Data P. Ltd., supra have been diluted in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC). Ld. Sr. DR also stated that the opinion of the Advocate was not available before the AO at the time of assessment of tax. On this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the entire agreement was referred to by the AO during penalty proceedings and the clauses of the agreement are verbatim reproduced in the same. Now question arises, whether the short deduction of TDS u/s. 194D of the Act treating the payments as contractual receipts u/s. 194C of the Act, in the given facts and circumstances as above, attracts penalty u/s. 271C of the Act or not. The facts above narrated are undisputed. The assessee has made payments treating the same as contractual payments in lieu of the agreement after obtaining opinion from the advocate. There is no dispute that the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C of the Act for contractual payment on the basis of the opinion of advocate and this is also not under dispute that the deductions were required to be made by the assessee u/s. 194D of the Act from the payments being made by the assessee either reimbursement of expenses or payments being contractual or commission income. Once there is advice from an expert, assessee has to rely on it and this constitutes a reasonable cause. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 745 (Del) has dealt with the issue of reasonable cause as mentioned in section 273B of the Act as under: