TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee : Shri Sarthak Khanna Present on behalf of Shri Alok Gupta, C.A. For the Department : Shri M. Baranwal, [CIT] - D. R.; ORDER PER C. N. PRASAD, J.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) New Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 10.08.2021 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The assessee in its appeals raised the following common grounds of appeal:- 1. The Penalty Order passed by the Ld. JCIT (OSD) is bad in law; 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct TDS. 7. The Co-ordinate Benches in M/s. Perfect Constech P. Ltd. case and ITA No. 5805, 5806, 5349/Del/2019 title of the case RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT have held that assessee was not required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of EDC. 7.1 As for convenience the relevant findings at para no. 5 in M/s. Perfect Constech Pvt. Ltd (supra) is reproduced; 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that in Para 4.3.2, subparagraph (iv) of the order passed u/s 271C of the Act, the LD.AO has himself noted that the demand draft of the EDC amounts are drawn in favour of the Chief Administrator, HUDA though routed through the Director General, Town and Country Planning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of HUDA for execution of the work. Therefore, it is our considered view that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of EDC as the same was not out of any statutory or contractual liability towards HUDA and, therefore, the impugned penalty was not leviable. We note that similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT Delhi in the cases of Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA 6844/Del/2019 vide order dated 18.12.2019, Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No.5337 5338/Del/2019 vide order dated 13.09.2019 and Shiv Sai Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.5713/Del/2019 vide order dated 11.09.2019. A similar view was also taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of contract between the assessee and the HUDA. On the contrary, the agreement is between Assessee Company and the DTCP which admittedly is a Government Department as agreement has been signed by DTCP on behalf of Governor of Haryana. We are of the view that we need not go in all these issues. From the facts, it is evident that the payments have been made by the assessee to HUDA which is an authority of Haryana Government created by enactment of Legislature for carrying out developmental activities in the state of Haryana. Such Authorities admittedly are not in the category of local authority or Government. These payments were made during the year 2013-2016 and during this period, that is, prior to issue of CBDT Circular dated 23.12.2017, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llection of tax u/s 201(1) or compensatory interest u/s 201(1A). The case of the assessee is that these amounts have already been paid so as to end dispute with Revenue. In the present appeals we are concerned with levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of Itochu Corporation 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Mitsui Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
