TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal overturns penalty for non-deduction of TDS, citing lack of concealment.</h1> <h3>Rushi Builders and Developers Versus Asst. CIT-15 (3), Mumbai</h3> Rushi Builders and Developers Versus Asst. CIT-15 (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues:Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on interest expenses claimed by the assessee.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-26 dated 13.08.2012, challenging the sustaining of the penalty of Rs. 3,83,890 imposed for not deducting TDS on claimed interest expenses of Rs. 11,40,492. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to non-deduction of TDS and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee contended that the non-production of Forms No. 15G was a technical lapse, and payments made to HUFs were believed not to require TDS deduction. However, the A.O. disagreed, alleging concealment of income and levied the penalty.During the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O., leading to the assessee's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed for the disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) and not for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The failure to deduct TDS resulted in the disallowance, but there was no indication of inaccurate particulars or concealment. The Tribunal observed that the disallowance was due to non-deduction of TDS as per section 194C, and there was no allegation of the expenditure being bogus. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in this scenario and ordered its deletion.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the penalty was not justified as it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The order was pronounced in the open court on March 4, 2015.
TaxTMI 