M/S. BARAK VALLEY CEMENTS LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

As the issues arising in both the appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us.

The only issue in the instant two appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Act for the delay in deposit of tax deducted at source (TDS). The undisputed fact before us remains that in the case of assessee M/s. Barak Valley Cements Ltd., during the financial year 2016-17, assessee was required to deposit TDS arrears at Rs.49,47,249/-. As per the chart indexed with the order u/s 221 of the Act dt. 05/03/2019, there is a delay of one month to twelve months in depositing such tax. Similarly, in case of M/s. Meghalaya Minerals & Mines Ltd., the TDS liability of Rs.15,71,949/- which the assessee was liable to deposit during various dates during the year. There is a delay of two months to twelve months. Details of such delay are also forming part of the order u/s 221 of the Act dt. 05/03/2019. During the proceedings u/s 221 of the Act, no plausible reason was given by both the assessees for the said delay and even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessees failed to appeal nor could place any evidence on record towards the reasons for such delay.

Under these facts and circumstances, we fail to find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/s 221 of the Act at Rs.70,000/- in respect of M/s. Meghalaya Minerals & Mines Ltd. and Rs.2,70,000/- in respect of M/s. Barak Valley Cements Ltd. Thus, all the Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Meghalaya Minerals & Mines Ltd. Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Barak Valley Cements Ltd.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, गुवाहाटी /DR,ITAT, Guwahati, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.