TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h High Court dismissed departmental appeal finding no substantial question of law. These facts would clearly support the findings of ld. CIT(Appeals) that assessee had a genuine belief that it would not require to deduct tax at source. The case of the assessee, therefore, squarely falls under the provisions of Section 273B of the Act and penalty is not leviable because assessee is able to prove that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1129/CHD/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - Bhavnesh Saini , JM And T. R. Sood, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Manjit Singh For the Respondent : Shri Vishal Mohan ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini,JM. This appeal by revenue is directed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r paid to- ------------------- f) such other institution, association or body or class of institutions, associations or bodies which the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette; The notification issued by the Central Government u/s 194A mentions various societies and entry at S.No. 40 (notification No. SO 3489 dated 22.10.1970) is as under: Any undertaking or body including a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI of 1890) financed wholly by the Government It has been pointed out in the appellate proceedings that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax at source on interest paid to the following three societies, details of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viable. 3.3.2 Regarding Shri Aurobindo Society, the appellant has filed a copy of certificate No. 547-49 dated 26.04.2006 issued by Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Kolkata from F.No. DIT(E)/86/8E/7/61-62 regarding exemption u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act valid for A.Y. 2011-12. The appellant has also filed a copy of return of income of Shri Aurobindo Society for A.Y. 2012- 13 as per which the total income was 'nil'. In any case, the appellant was under bonafide belief that it was not required to deduct tax on payment made to this society and so penalty u/s 271C was not leviable in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of State Bank of Patiala, Kusumpti, Shimla (supra). 3.3.3 The Ld. Counsel has pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailure to deduct tax at source under section 201(1) of the Act. In the case of State Bank of Patiala, Kusumpati, Shimla (supra), ITAT Chandigarh Bench dismissed the departmental appeal confirming the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in canceling the penalty under section 271C of the Act. The facts are identical in the case of State Bank of Patiala, Shimla (supra). Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed departmental appeal finding no substantial question of law. These facts would clearly support the findings of ld. CIT(Appeals) that assessee had a genuine belief that it would not require to deduct tax at source. The case of the assessee, therefore, squarely falls under the provisions of Section 273B of the Act and penalty is not levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
