TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passed by the Additional CIT on 18/08/2010, which is barred by limitation. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271C of the Act vide order dated 18/08/2010 was clearly hit by the barred by limitation which deserves to be set aside. The penalty under section 271C levied in the present case was not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 806 & 807/JP/2011 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2014 - Hari Om Maratha and N.K. Saini For the Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya For the Respondents: Shri D.C. Sharma-D.R. ORDER N.K. Saini, Member (A) 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 20/06/2011 of Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer. Since, the common issues are involved in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l CIT, Udaipur, who issued a notice under section 274/271C of the Act to show-cause as to why penalty under section 271C should not be imposed in its case for default of not making TDS of ₹ 1,79,309/- under section 194C of the Act while making advances to M/s. Rajasthan State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (RSRDCL). The assessee submitted in its reply that it did not make any TDS on the payments made to RSRDCL on the impression that the TDS provisions were not applicable in view of section 196 of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee-deductor had deposited the entire payment raised by ITO (TDS) within a stipulated time. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acceptable. Sec. 194C stipulated deduction of tax at the time of making any payment to the contractor. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that not tax was required to be deducted at the time of giving deposit mobilization advance is not correct. 3.4. In view of above mentioned facts, I hold that there was no reasonable cause in the case of appellant for not deducting tax at source. Levy of penalty u/s. 271C is therefore justified. Penalty of ₹ 1,79,309/- is confirmed. Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal are thus dismissed. Now the assessee is in appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty levied by the AO was barred by limitation as per the provisions contained in section 275(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, no penalty under section 271C of the Act was leviable. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- 1. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 2. ITO (TDS) Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer 50 Tax world 30 (JP) 3. Kamal Industries Vs. JCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 451 (JD) 4. CIT Vs. Eli Lilly Company (India) (P) Ltd (2009) 223 CTR 20 (SC) 5. CIT Vs. Dy. Housing Commissioner, Raj. Housing Board, Jodhpur (2002) 177 CTR 591 (Raj) 6. ITO Vs. Dishergarh Power Supply Co. Ltd . (2001) 71 TTJ 725 (Cal). 4. In his rival submissions, Ld. D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 18/08/2010 was clearly hit by the barred by limitation which deserves to be set aside. We order accordingly. 7. On a similar issue, the ITAT, Jaipur Bench 'A', Jaipur in the case of ITO (TDS), Ajmer Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer 50 TW 30 (JP) observed as under:- 2.1 We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO whereas the ld. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is an educational institution. During TDS survey, it was observed that the assessee did not make TDS on payment made to M/s. Rajasthan State Road Development Corporation Ltd. On behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
