Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
ITA No.61/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sri Avantika Contractors Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income (I) Limited, Tax, Circle 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN AAJCS 5046C Appellant Respondent
Appellant By : Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Sunil Gowtham (D.R.)
Date of Hearing : 08.12.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021.
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2009-10 arises from
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad’s order
dt.27.10.2017 passed in case No.0078/CIT(A)/HYD/2010-11 in
proceedings under Section 271C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 ITA No.61/Hyd/2018 2. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the
lower authorities’ have erred in law and on facts in imposing 271C
penalty of Rs.9,99,606; we note that the same pertains to its failure in
not deducting/remitting TDS involving rent, contract, professional and
salary payments u/s. 194I, 194C, 194J and 192 of the Act; respectively.
There is hardly any dispute that it had failed to deduct TDS on the
corresponding payment.
Learned authorized representative vehemently submitted during
the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in
law and on facts in invoking the impugned penalty. Mr. Srinivas
reiterated the assessee's stand in light of its detailed paper book
running into 24 pages that foregoing failure was on account of the fact
that the corresponding payments had been made at construction sites
at local level wherein the work force did not have adequate knowledge
of the compliance mechanism under chapter XVII of the Act. And that
there was change in assessee's audit / accounts staff as well which
forms a very valid reason of the impugned non-compliance. All these
arguments fail to evoke our concurrence as it was the assessee's duty
to deduct TDS as per the specified provisions and the foregoing twin
3 ITA No.61/Hyd/2018 alleged reasons hardly deserve to be accepted since going against the
mandatory TDS compliance mechanism in the Act. We thus hold in
these factual circumstances that both the lower authorities have
rightly imposed the impugned penalty u/s.271C of the Act. The same
stands affirmed.
This assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Dec., 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, Dt. 16.12.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited, 610B, Niligiri Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 038 2. DCIT, Circle 15(1), Hyderabad. 3. C I T (TDS), Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-8, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File.
By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.