TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act are not attracted. We accordingly direct its deletion. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T. A. No. 2040 to 2043/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - SHRI SHAILENDRA Kr. YADAV, J.M. SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.) For the Respondent : Shri Roop Chand, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. These 4 appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Surat dated 30.06.2011 for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2006-07. 2. None appeared on behalf of Assessee but however written submissions were filed on 15.12.2014. We therefore proceed to decide the issue ex parte qua the Assessee and on the basis of written submissions of Assessee material on record. 3. Before us, the ld. D.R. submitted that the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore tax cannot be recovered again from Assessee. It was further submitted that the omission to deduct tax was not intentional but was due to the difference in accounting adopted by S.B.I. The submissions of the Assessee were not found acceptable to the A.O, as he was of the view that Assessee has not been able to substantiate the circumstances beyond its control which prevented it from complying with the provisions of TDS. He accordingly relying on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs. ITO 113 ITD 207 concluded that Assessee has committed default within the meaning of Section 271C and accordingly vide order dated 14.10.2010 imposed a penalty of RS. 60,127/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tic consequence of non deduction or none payment of tax if there is a reasonable cause. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 253 ITR 745, Muthoot Bankers vs. JCIT (2011) 12 ITR (Tri) 40 (Cochin), ITO vs. Muthoot Financiers (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 71 (Cochin), ITO vs. Dishergarh Power Supply Company Ltd. (2001) 71 TTJ (Cal) 725 and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. vs. JCIT (2010) 129 TTAJ (Ahd) 715. It was thus prayed that the penalty levied be deleted. 8. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and CIT(A). 9. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. In the present case it is an undisputed fact that Assessee has paid MICR charges to SBI and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has held that when payment is disclosed in the return, there is no concealment of facts and further when recipients have shown the receipts in the returns and had paid taxes thereon, there was no loss to the Government and therefore penalty cannot be levied. 11.In the case of ITO vs. Dishergarh Power Supply Company Ltd. (supra) , the coordinate Bench of Tribunal has held that penalty u/s/ 271C is not an automatic consequence of non deduction or short deduction of tax at source and penalty cannot be imposed in case the person concerned can demonstrate that there was a reasonable cause for his failure referred to in Section 271C. It further held that when an explanation is offered, it is the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
