SHRIRAM INSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 434/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 March 2018AY 2012-20132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the primary order under Section 201(1)/(1A) was found to be legally untenable and set aside by the Tribunal itself, the penalty levied on its basis was also null and void. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order imposing penalty under Section 271C for short deduction of TDS. The penalty was based on an earlier order under Section 201(1)/(1A) concerning lease line charges and computer maintenance charges.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271C can be sustained when the underlying order for short deduction of TDS has been held to be legally untenable. The issue of violation of natural justice and limitation was also raised but not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C,Section 201(1)/(1A),Section 194J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 20.02.2018Pronounced: 28.03.2018

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-24, Kolkata dated 31.12.2015 for AY 2012-13.

2.

At the outset itself, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that penalty u/s. 271C was imposed by short deduction of TDS u/s. 194J on payments of lease line charges, computer maintenance charge etc. raised in an order u/s. 201(1)/(1A) dated 31.03.2014. According to Ld. AR, the order of AO u/s. 201(1)/1A dated 31.03.2014 on this issue has been found to be legally untenable by this Tribunal on 09.02.2018, in for this relevant AY under consideration and so resultantly, the penalty levied on the foundation of AO’s order which is non-existing in the eyes of law, also necessarily has to fail. So, penalty order is “null” in the eyes of law and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3. Before we part, we would hasten to add, that the Ld. CIT(A) himself has ordered deletion of penalty, however, did not allow the plea of the assessee in respect to ground no. 1 and 2 before him, which were assailing the decision of the AO in respect of penalty be levied in violation of Natural justice and limitation. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal on the ground that AO’s order u/s. 201(1)/1A has been set aside being untenable in law, the penalty levied on the basis of AO’s order which is not existing in the eyes of law is ‘null’ in the eyes of law. All other grounds raised

by the assessee is not looked into being academic in nature.

4. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28.03.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 28th March, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., C/o, D. J. Shah & Co. Kalyan Bhavan, 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700 020. Respondent – JCIT, Range-59(TDS), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →