M/S. SYNDICATE LABELS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4386/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 October 2015AY 2008-094 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 the assessee had a bona fide belief that tax deduction was not required based on a circular and relief granted to the principal company. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for payments made to M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expense under Section 40(a)(ia) and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed for non-deduction of tax at source when the assessee acted under a bona fide belief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 271(1)(c),Section 172,Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI R.S. SYALBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYALBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYALBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Niren Gupta, CA

ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.06.2014 passed by the ld. CIT(A) confirming penalty of `4,06,009/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in relation to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction in respect of certain payments made to M/s Maersk India Pvt.Ltd. The Assessing Officer observed that such payments totalling `11,94,498/- were made without deduction of tax at source. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by holding that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source. Resultantly, addition was made for the sum which constituted bedrock for the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned

2 ITA-4386/Del/2014 CIT(A) upheld this penalty. The assessee is aggrieved against the confirmation of this penalty.

3.

After considering rival submissions and perusing relevant material on record, it is observed that the instant penalty has been imposed only in respect of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee entertained a bona fide belief about the non-deduction of tax at source from the amount paid to M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of a Circular, as per which, the foreign shipping companies and their agents were governed by the provisions of Section 172 and not by Section 194C of the Act. Though it is an admitted fact that the assessee made the payment to a resident but the fact remains that principal of M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd., being M/s A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, Denmark, was given 100% DIT relief, copy of which letter issued by the office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) dated 23.04.2007, has been placed on record. These facts indicate that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the amount paid to M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. was not liable for deduction of tax at source. Be that as it may, I am concerned with the imposition and confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which presupposes concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Here is a case in which the assessee neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. Deduction on account of M/s Maersk India Pvt.Ltd. was claimed after making due payments. The dispute is only about deduction or non-deduction of tax at source from payments to M/s Maersk India Pvt.Ltd. for which disallowance has been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Under no circumstance can such a disallowance be brought within the ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee made a proper disclosure about the expense claimed by it as deduction which was neither bogus nor otherwise non-deductible but 3 ITA-4386/Del/2014 for the application of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Overturning the impugned order, I order for the deletion of the instant penalty.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 21st October, 2015.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →