PR.CIT vs. CORONATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/514/2015HC DelhiDLHC01305449201531 July 2015Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since both the CIT(A) and ITAT found the non-deduction of TDS to be for bonafide reasons, no substantial question of law arose. The NBFCs had accounted for interest and paid taxes, and repayment terms were clear.

What were the facts?

A survey revealed the assessee made interest payments to NBFCs without deducting TDS and failed to collect tax at source on scrap sales. Penalties were levied under Section 271C.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271C is leviable when non-deduction of TDS is for bonafide reasons. Whether a substantial question of law arises when lower authorities concurrently hold bonafide reasons for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C,Section 133A,Section 206C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

* 2. + 3. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 505/2015 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. versus CORONATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Respondent WITH ITA 506/2015 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. versus CORONATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Respondent WITH + ITA 507/2015 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. versus CORONATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Respondent ITA Nos. 505, 506, 507 & 514 of 2015 Page 1 of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

AND 6. + ITA 514/2015 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. versus CORONATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 31.07.2015 CM Nos. 13222/2015.13223/2015 & 13243/2015 (for exemption^ 1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 505/2015. 506/2015. 507/2015 & 514/2015 3. These are appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') for various Assessment Years ('AYs') on issue of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). ITA Nos. 505, 506, 507 & 514 of 2015 Page 2 of 4

4.

A survey operation undertaken on 12'^ November 2008 under Section 133 A of the Act revealed that the Respondent Assessee made payments of interest on loans borrowed from four Non-Banking Financial Companies ('NBFCs') without deducting tax at source. It was also found that the Respondent had not collected tax collected at source under Section 206C of the Act on the sale of scrap. In that context that the penalty was levied under Section 271-C of the Act. 5. The Assessee succeeded both before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as well as the ITAT who concurrently held that the non- deduction of TDS was for bonafide reasons. Among the factors that ^weighed with both the CIT (A) and the ITAT were that the NBFCs in question had in their returns accounted for the interest amount earned and had paid the taxes thereon. Further, the repayment schedule was fixed and post-dated cheques were collected upfront which included the principal amount together with the interest. 6. It was urged by Mr. Sahni, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue that it was only on account of the survey operation undertaken that the above lapse was detected and it is only thereafter that the Assessee made ITA Nos. 505, 506, 507 & 514 of 2015 Page 3 of 4

good the lapse. 7. The Court is of the view that where two authorities have, in the context of penalty proceedings under Section 271 C of the Act, been convinced with the reasons offered by the Assessee and have concluded that the failure to deduct TDS was for bonqfide reasons, no substantial question of law arises for determination by the Court. 8. The appeals are dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 31,2015/dn ITA Nos. SOS, S06, S07 & S14 of201S Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →