Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI L.P. SAHU
PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 20.02.2015, passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi in relation to penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271C for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s. 271C of Rs.16,57,266/-.
At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the issue involved, regarding levy of penalty u/s.271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in this appeal, has already been decided in assessee’s own case vide order dated 07.08.2018, in for Assessment Year 2007-08 and in the present appeal same facts and circumstances are permeating, therefore same should be followed.
On the other hand, the learned DR could not controvert the averments made by the learned Authorized Representative.
We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the material on record. We find that the Tribunal vide order dated 07.08.2018 in ITA 2362/DEL/2015 (supra), has already decided the similar issue in dispute, in favour of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced as under: “5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that on the payment of professional charges, there was a short deduction of TDS. The explanation of the assessee was that it was under a bona fide belief that TDS was not deductible as the relevant portions of the payment were covered under The DTAA. Further, the TDS has already been deposited voluntarily and suo moto immediately on the default being pointed out and much before the default coming to the knowledge of the Department on 11.02.2008 under the survey proceedings. Thus, if the assessee has voluntarily suo moto deposited the tax much before the default coming into notice and at the time of payment if there was a bona fide belief that the payments are covered under DTAA it cannot be held that there was any contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee for not deducting / short deducting the TDS. Accordingly, we hold that under these facts, the assessee had reasonable and bona fide reason for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to nonresidents and will fall in the realm of bona fide belief as contemplated u/s.273B; and accordingly, the penalty
levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
Respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case passed for assessment year 2007-08 (supra), we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.