9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addl. CIT(TDS), Surat u/s 271CA the Act, dated 25.02.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying of penalty of Rs. 87,750/- u/s 271CA of the Act on account of non-deduction of TCS. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in course of hearing of the appeal." 2. The appellant was engaged in business of coal and lignite trading during the year under consideration. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made on 25.12.2012 in FY.2012-13 itself. Hence, the AO did not raise any demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. However, the AO passed order u/s 206(6&6A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act later on 11.02.2019 and intimated the Addl. CIT, TDS on 11.02.2019 to initiate penalty u/s 271C(1)(a) of the Act. Resultantly, the Addl. CIT, TDS issued notices u/s 271CA on 26.08.2021, 13.10.2021 and 27.01.2022. The appellant received said notice on 13.10.2021 through mail and replied that there was no failure on the part of appellant to collect the tax in view of the facts stated above and requested not to levy penalty u/s 271CA r.w.s. 129 of the Act. The Addl. CIT (TDS) rejected the reply of appellant and passed the penalty order on 25.02.2022, mainly on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l while communicating the hearing notices, assessee would have received the same and complied with the requirement in the notice. He submitted that there was actually no default because assessee had deposited TCS of Rs. 87,750/- on 25.12.2012, i.e., in FY.2012-13 itself. He also contended that there was reasonable cause for delay in compliance for a small period. He also submitted that order of the AO was time barred. The ld. AR of the assessee relied the following cases (i) in case of ITO (TDS) vs. Shri Om Parksh Gupta (HUF) ITA Nos. 341 & 342/Chd/2016 dated 20.06.2016, (ii) ITO (TDS) vs. Shri Tarsem Lal Prop ITA No.1311/Chd/2016 dated 19.05.2017 (iii) Chandmal Sancheti vs. ITO (2016) 72 taxmann.com 237 (Jaipur- Trib.) (iv) G.K.Traders vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) of the Act and not on the provisions of TCS or on 273B of the Act. On the other hand, the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR, mentioned at para 4 above, support the case of the appellant on the ground of "reasonable cause" u/s 273B of the Act and the order of AO dated 11.02.2019 being time barred. In view of the above facts and the decisions cited supra, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and AO is directed to delete levy of penalty of Rs. 87,750/-. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is allowed.
7. The other two grounds are general in nature and do not require adjudication.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 29/04/2025. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
