Land Acquisition Collector (South ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Department by : Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, LDC & Sh. Jitender, UDC

Date of Hearing : 29-06-2015 Date of Order : 29-06-2015 ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed these Appeals against the common impugned Order dated 05.5.2011 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are common, hence, we are disposing of the appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity, by dealing with the ITA No. 3729/Del/2011 (A.Y. 2005-06).

2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011 (A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07) read as under:-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in :-

1 ITA NOS. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011

1) Deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271C of Rs. 17,58,561/- for FY 2004-05 and Rs. 3,54,146/-

for FY 2005-06 on the ground that the assessee was not aware of the provision of I.T. Act and the intention of the assessee is not malafide.

2) Ignoring the detailed findings recorded by the Addl. CIT in the penalty order and considering the submission of the assessee during the appellate proceedings u/R 46A and decided the issue in favor of the assessee.

3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the Grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

3. The brief facts of the case are the Order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 30.3.2009 which was subsequently rectified u/s. 154 of the Act on 29.5.2009. During the course of verification proceedings, it has been noticed that the assessee had deducted tax on expenses liable for TDS but failed to deposit the tax so deducted during the relevant financial years within the prescribed time limit prescribed under Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 5.11.2009 to explain as to why penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not imposed for the above default and the date of compliance was fixed for 13.11.2009. No compliance was made on the date fixed. Another opportunity was provided vide notice dated 7.4.2010. Vide letter dated 13.5.2010 the assessee filed its explanation. After considering the explanation. AO noticed that there was a short deduction of TDS. There is short deduction of TDS u/s. 194A of the

2 ITA NOS. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011

Act and in some cases payment of interest on enhanced compensation paid on account of land acquisition. He is of the view that assessee has committed the default of Rs. 17,58,561/- u/s. 201(1) of the Act and of Rs. 9,62,407/- being interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act, for which penalty u/s. 271C of the Act is liable to be imposed. Since the assessee has failed to avail the opportunity provided to explain the reason as to why penalty should not be imposed, it becomes amply clear that the assessee has committed a default. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 27,20,969/- was imposed u/s. 271C of the Act vide order dated 21.5.2010.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 21.5.2010 deleted the penalty in dispute by allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.

5. Now aggrieved with the impugned order, Revenue filed the present Appeal before the Tribunal.

6. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contention raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal.

7. On the contrary, employee of the Assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders of the Revenue Authorities. We find that it was mentioned in the impugned order that the assessee has no professional staff nor any chartered accountant and advocate representing the case of the Department. The LDC Sh. Hari Chand who was dealing with the TDS matters has represented before THE Ld. CIT(A), but he could not explained anything on legal disputes in

3 ITA NOS. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011

the order of the AO. Due to lack of knowledge of Income Tax, the staff employee deducted TDS @10% on interest paid on enhanced compensation. The short fall was detected by the survey team of the I.T. Department. The assessee has timely deposited the tax deducted in the Govt. Department. It shows that the assessee has no malafide intention. Moreover, when it comes to the knowledge of the assessee, the assessee started recovery of balance surcharge from the landlord at the time of further enhanced compensation paid to said landlord subsequently and remitted the same into Government account.

8.1 We note that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has noted that the assessee relied on the case of Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of PSEB vs. ITO 121 Taxman (Magazine) 367 in which it was held as under:-

"The Commissioner (Appeals) while cancelling penalty under section 271C, had held that the assessee bonafidely believed that it was not liable to deduct surcharge from the interest paid on bonds. It had further been held that the assessee could have derived no benefit by not deducting surcharge at source as the amount was to be deducted and paid out of interest paid to third party. The Commissioner (Appeals) having regard to material available on record had accepted the plea of the assessee. The revenue had not brought any material on record to show that the belief of the assessee was not bona fide one or that failure to deduct surcharge was attributable to gross and willful neglect on the part of the assessee. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not possible to hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) committed any error in cancelling the penalties levied on

4 ITA NOS. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011

the assessee u/s. 271C. A reasonable belief that one is not obliged to deduct tax or surcharge at source can be treated as good and sufficient cause for not deducting tax! surcharge at source. There was nothing on record to show that belief, in the instance case, was not bonafidely held or that it was malafide. Accordingly, it was to be held that the Commissioner (Appeals] was fully justified in cancelling penalty levied on the assessee."

8.2 In view of the above arguments and the precedent relied, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was right in observing that the default committed by the assessee is not malafide but the same is due to bonafide belief of assessee that it was liable to deduct TDS @ 10% on the interest paid on enhanced compensation and was not aware of loading surcharge on tax rate of 10%. We find that the the other plea was taken by the assessee that the penalty is not amount of interest on short fall in tax. The penalty is leviable on the principal amount not on the interest. The plea taken by the assessee is correct. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty in dispute.

8.3 Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold action of the Ld. CIT(A) of deleting the penalty of Rs. 17,58,561/- and decide the issue in dispute against the Revenue by dismissing the Appeal filed by the Revenue.

ITA NO. 3730/DEL/2011 (AY. 2006-07)

9. Since the facts of this appeal are similar and identical to that of ITA No. 3729/Del/2011 (AY 2005-06), as aforesaid. Therefore, in the present Appeal bearing No. 3730/Del/2011 AY 2006-07) also we follow the same decision of confirming the action of the Ld. CIT(A) of

5 ITA NOS. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011

deleting the penalty made u/s. 271(1)(c), being similar and identical facts. Accordingly, in this case also the action of the Ld. CIT(A) of deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,54,146/- is upheld and issue in dispute is decided against the Revenue by dismissing the Appeal filed by the Revenue.

10. In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/06/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

[S.V. MEHROTRA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 29/06/2015

"SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

6 ITA NOS. 3729 & 3730/Del/2011

7