TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to the Govt. account. See Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa (1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court ) There was a reasonable cause for the assessee for short deduction of the tax within the meaning of Sec. 273B of the Act. We, accordingly, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1926/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2015 - R. S. Padvekar, JM And R. K. Panda, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Damor For the Respondents : Shri Rahul Khare Sanjeev A Joshi ORDER Per: R S Padvekar: This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-V, Pune dated 30-08-2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09 deleting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the hearing of the case or thereafter. 2. The facts which revealed from the record are as under. The assessee is a Public Charitable Trust and runs a Hospital under the name and style as Ruby Hall Clinic in Pune. There was a survey action in the Hospital premises of the assessee and TDS verification was carried out on 09-09-2008 and 10-09-2008. During the course of verification, certain discrepancies were noticed by the TDS Officers and accordingly, order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act dated 29-06-2009 was passed. The assessee challenged those orders before the CIT(A) and got the partial relief. The penalty proceedings was initiated u/s. 271C of the Income-tax Act and the penalty of ₹ 1,08,13,268/- was levied vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of laboratory fees paid. In the background of the above facts, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer there was a default on the part of the assessee and it attracts the penalty u/s. 271C of the Act. He, accordingly, levied the penalty as stated here-in-above. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: 7. I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as reply of the appellant. In this regard the appellant has submitted that the quantum of non-deduction/short deduction of TDS pertains to Doctors having fixed remuneration as well as laboratory fees. The learned counsel of the appellant has also submitted that the default was on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default which is basically technical in nature as compliance to the TDS provisions was made by the appellant trust according to its perception as well as interpretation of the provisions of Income-tax Act. After going through the submissions of the appellant, I find that there is sufficient force in the argument of the appellant and it is seen that the appellant has complied with the provisions of TDS as per its own understanding of provisions of TDS and therefore, considering the compliance of the appellant trust, it is held that there was reasonable cause for short deductions of TDS. Accordingly, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Pune was not justified in levying penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the Doctors rendering their services in the hospital of the assessee trust, the remuneration paid to them is covered by Sec. 192 when the assessee had deducted the tax as per the provisions of Sec. 194J of the Act, treating said payment as professional fees. In respect of laboratory fees, the assessee deducted the tax u/s. 192 but in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the assessee should have deducted tax u/s. 194J. It is true that the assessee has accepted and made the payment towards short deduction of tax and also paid the interest. In the penalty proceedings the assessee can take stand that the payment made to the Doctors partake the character of the profession fees but we need not go into the controversy whether the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
