9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1815/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 Your appellant being aggrieved by the order passed u/s.271C of the Income Tax Act by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds. "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.51,83,473/- u/s.271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed penalty au/s.271C of the Act. The incorrect and illegal penalty so levied and confirmed be cancelled. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and on law in confirming the penalty of Rs.46,19,300/- (i.e. Rs.51,83,473 - Rs.5,64,173 excess considered by AO) u/s. 271C of the Act on account of default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that only due to reasons beyond control and financial crunch, payment was made late by the Company, due to which there was consequential delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates. The said bonafide explanations were not considered neither by AO nor Ld. CIT(A). On facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty levied of Rs.85,800/- by invoking the provision of section 272A(2)(g) of the Act ought to have been deleted. It may be held so now." 3. In ITA Nos.1817/Ahd/2018 & 1818/Ahd/2018 for A.Ys. 2016-17, similar grounds have been raised by the assessee except for the amounts in dispute. Therefore the same are not reproduced. 4. Firstly we are taking up ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16 wherein order under Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has signed the Appeal Memo is not as per the procedure prescribed under Income Tax Act. Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order as well as the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the submissions made before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act by the assessee. From the perusal of the penalty order, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that the assessee failed to pay the deducted tax within the stipulated time but from the perusal of the submissions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer it is seen that except the TDS on the interest payment to two parties the assessee has paid the TDS before the survey proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business and there was a delay in payment of TDS due to non-availability of funds and thus this cannot be treated as wilful default. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that the assessee made default by not filing quarterly returns in Form No.24Q and 26Q and by not issuing certificates of TDS in time and is liable to pay penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act which is for accumulated 858 days and Rs.100/- per day totalling Rs.85,800/-. Here also penalty was imposed without taking cognisance of the reasons given by the assessee which was genuine reason and cannot be strictly adhered to. The delay in issuance of certificate within the stipulated time was due to the non-availability of financial advise/concerned person who dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
