TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stipulates that if the assessee is liable for tax audit in A.Y.2015-16 then, he is bound to deduct tax at source and comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act in respect of transactions carried out by him in A.Y.2016-17. We find that there is no evidence brought on record by both the parties or from the orders of the lower authorities that whether assessee was liable for tax audit in the A.Y.2015-16. For this limited purpose, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the AO to verify the same and decide the issue in accordance with second proviso to Section 194H of the Act, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The other propositions made by the AR are not require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding levy of penalty u/s.271C of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a proprietrix of Mount Mary Builders and is engaged in real estate development and construction of flats. The assessee entered into an agreement dated 22nd January, 2013 with M/s Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd. appointing them as marketing representative and underwriter to sell the units of the project - Green World having address at Navi Mumbai. In consideration, M/s Indiabulls was entitled to receive marketing fees. 3.1 In a survey action carried out at the assessee's business premises, it was found that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that pursuant to the survey, this issue of non-deduction of tax at source in respect of payment of marketing fees to M/s. India Bulls came to light and accordingly, assessee is entitled to be invited with the penalty u/s.271C of the Act. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the paras 5 to 5.5 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in support of his arguments. We find that the Ld. AR stated that assessee being a builder, is following the project completion method and that the income derived from the said project shall be recognized on completion of the project. Admittedly, during the year under consideration, there was no completion of any project warranting recognition of revenue thereon. We find that assessee had pleaded before the lower authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been recognized by the assessee from projects. The perusal of the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the assessee goes to prove that the assessee is not liable for tax audit u/s.44AB of the Act for the year under consideration. We find that the second proviso to Section 194H stipulates that if the assessee is liable for tax audit in A.Y.2015-16 then, he is bound to deduct tax at source and comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act in respect of transactions carried out by him in A.Y.2016-17. We find that there is no evidence brought on record by both the parties or from the orders of the lower authorities that whether assessee was liable for tax audit in the A.Y.2015-16. For this limited purpose, we deem it fit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
