ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIBRANT SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-8, Mumbai, dated 09.12.2013, deleting the penalty of Rs.12,29,539/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 15.11.2007 declaring total income at Rs.80,70,021/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the total

ITA 1427/Mum/14

income at Rs.1,35,77,875/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed transaction

charges amounting to Rs36,52,820/-, VSAT charges of Rs.1,10,533/- and Lease line charges of Rs.9,29,500/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.12,29,539/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A).

and lease line charges has been a debatable issue. The Hon’ble Bombay

High Court in the case of Kotak Securities ltd. 340 ITR 333 has held that TDS

is not deductible in case of lease line charges and VSAT charges; however,

TDS is deductible in relation to transaction charges. The learned CIT(A) has observed that the assessee was under bona fide belief that no TDS was deductible in relation to transaction charges also. He further observed that the issue was a debatable issue and the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case

in the immediately preceding year has deleted the disallowance in respect of non-deduction of TDS in respect of transaction charges. He therefore held

that it was not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate

particulars of income by the assessee.

on record. We do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the ITA 1427/Mum/14

CIT(A) in this respect and the same is accordingly upheld. Even otherwise,

the assessee has already suffered the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS.

The expenditure incurred by the assessee has not been disputed by the revenue. Hence, it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Hence, the provisions of section 271(1)(c)

are not attracted in this case. We do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue, it is accordingly dismissed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2015. (D KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER

मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 27 November, 2015. SA आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" /The Appellant.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त ////

प/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.