Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 271C in M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corpn Ltd, ... vs Acit, Cochin on 25 September, 2019Matching Fragments
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, however, no penalty proceedings under section 271C shall be taken in any of these cases as the issue involved was a nascent issue. Accordingly, we quash the penalty proceedings under section 271C.
Further, the ld.,Counsel for the assessee relied upon one more decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2010) 234 CTR 146 which is on the TDS u/s 194J wherein also the Apex Court observed at para 10 that :
6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201(1) and 201(1A), the levy of penalty u/s.271C should also go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as this is consequential and only to be taken after the decision in the quantum appeal u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) for the relevant assessment years. Accordingly the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(Appeals) are set aside and remitted back to Assessing Officer for proper adjudication on merits, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee."
"The concept of aggregation or consolidation of the entire income chargeable under the head "salaries"
being exigible to deduction of tax at source under section 192 was a nascent issue. It has not been considered by this court before. Further, in most of these cases, the tax deductor-assessee has not claimed deduction under section 40(a)(iii) in computation of its business income. This is one more reason for not imposing penalty under section 271C because by not claiming deduction under section 40(a)(iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Eli Lilly (supra).
M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd.
17. The appeals in ITA No.611 to 615/Coch/2010 are with regard to sustenance of penalty u/s 271C of the I.T.Act. Since we have deleted the addition or remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in respect of orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, as such the penalty orders are not surviving under these sections. Hence, at this stage the assessee cannot be held as assessee in default to levy penalty u/s 271C of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.