Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, District Basic Education Officer, made payments for designated project assignments and was alleged to have not deducted TDS. The lower authorities levied penalty under section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on payments made for consultancy services. The revenue argued that TDS was not deducted on payments to various experts.
Held
The Tribunal observed that it was not conclusively determined if the persons engaged were actual experts or mere assistants. Considering the assessee offered a reasonable explanation, the penalty under Section 201(1) deserves to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS is justified when the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the engagement of persons who might not have been actual experts?
Sections Cited
271C, 194J, 201(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066188381(1) dated 28.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’].
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned Lower authorities have levied section 271C penalty herein alleging non- deduction of TDS by the assessee/deductor, i.e. Uttar Pradesh Education, on payments made to various persons for carrying out the designated project assignments. The assessee/deductor is admittedly a government body who engaged various persons to whom payments in question have been held as consultancy services liable for TDS deduction u/s 194J of the Act.
The Revenue’s vehement argument in light of the Assessing Officer’s order date 24.01.2024 pressed u/s 201(1) of the Act is that the assessee had admittedly not deducted TDS on payments to various said experts. We find from a perusal of the said order that certain persons in the rank of coordinator etc. have been treated as so called experts without even arriving at a conclusion whether they are actual experts or mere assistants, as the case may be. We are of the considered view in these facts that impugned Section 201(1) penalty herein deserves to be deleted as the assessee has indeed offered a reasonable explanation in the given facts. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025