TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Avinash Kumar, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri D. M. Rindani, AR ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the Department is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Rajkot, dated 21/07/2015 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Department has been taken following Grounds of appeals: i. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as well as facts of the case in holding that penalty of ₹ 83,10,083/- u/s. 271C cannot be sustained merely on the ground of default without considering the existence of reasonable cause. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has deducted TDS to the extent of ₹ 51,62,474/- for the period from 04/2013 to 10/2013 but had failed to deposit the same into the Government account. Effectively the company has retained all these amount belongings to Government unauthorisely and has utilized the same for their business. There is no satisfactory explanation on part of the company which renders it liable for penalty provisions of section 271C of the I.T. Act. 6. Considering all the relevant facts it is clear from the records that the assessee has defaulted in complying with the TDS provisions of the IT Act and has thus rendered itself liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271C of the I.T. Act. 7. Total amount of tax the assessee has failed to deduct or pay t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tia (2016) 380 ITR 0550 (SC) : It has been held with regard to levy of penalty u/s. 271C, it was necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on part of assessee. The assessee had already paid amounts of TDS. (ii). Indo Nissin Foods Ltd. vs JCIT(2004) 3 SOT 0495 Bang Tribunal : Payment of tax and interest having been made voluntarily before any detection by the Department albeit with delay, there was a bona fide belief not attracting penalty u/s 271C. (ii) CIT vs Itochu Corporation (2004) 268 ITR 0172 Del HC : Since the assessee had paid the tax along with interest voluntarily and there existed a bona fide belief for not deducting the tax at source on account of emoluments paid to the expatriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
