TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany which is mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the penalty order. These crucial facts were totally ignored by the AO as well as by the CIT(A) - payment of delayed TDS to the Government Treasury was not a negligent act on the part of the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, Section 271C of the Act is not properly invoked. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] is applicable in the present case though the Section mentioned in that decision is Section 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) has simplicitor confirmed the penalty without looking into the aspect that the levy of penalty was in excess of the default. Thus, the reasoning given by the CIT(A) is not just and proper. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-17 respectively. 2. The grounds raised are as under :- ITA No.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of delay in furnishing TDS Certificates. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated 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. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. At the time of hearing, ld. DR pointed out that the company is a defunct company and hence the Director 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer thereby pointing out that the assessee company suffered from liquidity crash due to slow-down of the 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 cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
