A SURTI DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4782/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal concerning the TDS levy was subsequently allowed, the penalty levied under Section 271C should be deleted. The penalty was confirmed without considering the outcome of the quantum appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid lease premium to MMRDS, and the Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271C for failure to deduct TDS under Section 194I. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, despite the assessee's quantum appeal regarding the TDS levy being pending.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271C is sustainable when the underlying issue of TDS levy is decided in favour of the assessee in a separate appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C,Section 194I,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mehta
For Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, DR
Hearing: 31.08.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 31.08.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 15.7.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-9, Mumbai dated 3.6.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld CIT (A), Mumbai confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is both bad in law and bad in facts.

2. The Ld CIT (A) erred in law as well as in facts in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 16,96,382/- u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the fact that the assessee‟s quantum appeal regarding levy of TDS on payment of lease premium to MMRDS was pending before the CIT (A)-12, Mumbai and this fact was in knowledge of the CIT (A).”

2. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the penalty u/s 271C of the Act. Brief facts include that in the order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act, AO observed that the assessee had made lease premium payment of Rs. 60,55,050/- to M/s. Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDS). AO opined that the same amount attracts TDS u/s 194I of the Act. Considering the assessee‟s non- compliance of the provision of section 194I of the Act as well as the assessee‟s

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →