TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n does not arise. HELD THAT:- The assessee had been given multiple and more than sufficient opportunities to explain its case before the authorities which were not assailed. It is only now, before this Court, that the petitioner pursues the explanation tendered in reply dated 23.03.2015. Revenue points out that there are admitted instances of delay and also that he is right. However, it is also a fact that the legal argument put forth by the petitioner in response dated 23.03.2015 has not been taken note of by the respondents. Thus, to balance the interest of both parties, as permit the petitioner to appear before the respondent on Friday i.e., 24.03.2023, without awaiting any further notice, on which date the respondents shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax deduction does not arise. This position has been tentatively enunciated by the petitioner in its only reply filed before the second respondent on 23.03.2015 that reads thus:- Sub: Prosecution proceedings u/s276B. Ref: C.No:24/CIT(TDS)/PROSN/2014-15- Ref.20/155 I was unable to represent myself with you as requested on 6/3/2015. However we wish to make the following submissions. 1.For Fy2009/10, we had remitted the TDS up to date with interest and penalty payable and filed the returns of our own accord prior to receiving any intimation from the department. 2.We as a company have been incurring huge losses and the delay was neither wilful nor wanton. 3.Several of the delayed TDS remittances are for payments on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1968 vide Finance Act, 1968, the 'failure to deduct' was deleted from the ambit of prosecution under that provision. A clear distinction recognized and made between the factum of 'deduction' and that of 'remittance'. The assessee had been given multiple and more than sufficient opportunities to explain its case before the authorities which were not assailed. It is only now, before this Court, that the petitioner pursues the explanation tendered in reply dated 23.03.2015. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue points out that there are admitted instances of delay and also that he is right. However, it is also a fact that the legal argument put forth by the petitioner in response dated 23.03.2015 has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
