TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment of TDS in time, the addition is technical in nature and hence, the same does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified in these circumstances. In the present case, the facts are similar and even better because in the present case, TDS was deducted and paid also although belatedly. Hence, by respectfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f disallowance of expense towards payment to contractors and procession fee for violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to address the issue as to why the assessee, though assisted by qualified Chartered Accountant, flowed the express legal provisions and failed to deposit the IDS within the prescribed time, and thus deprived the government to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he due date of filing of return of income, no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia). He also submitted that although the disallowance was made in the present case, but under these facts and in view of the above cited judgement of Hon ble Calcutta High Court, penalty is not justified. He also placed reliance on the tribunal decision rendered in the case of DCIT Vs L G Chaudhary in I.T.A.No. 228/Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of Coordinate bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of DCIT Vs L G Chaudhary (supra), it was held that where deduction of TDS is made by the assessee and disallowance is made u/s 40(a)(ia) due to none payment of TDS, that itself cannot be construed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified in these ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
