TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court affirms deletion of penalty under Income-tax Act for technical default, no evidence of income concealment</h1> The Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. It found that the disallowance of ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of TDS deduction - Tribunal upheld disallowance but deleted penalty - Held that:- disallowance was due to non-payment of TDS, which was at the most a technical default. There being nothing to indicate any concealment of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was rightly not justified in levying the penalty - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rs.Analysis:1. The respondent, engaged in construction business for the year 2006-07, disclosed total income of Rs. 14 lacs. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses for not deducting/depositing TDS and imposed a penalty. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, upholding the disallowance but not confirming the penalty. The Tribunal upheld the order disallowing expenses but did not confirm the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The revenue challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal.2. The court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel contended that the penalty was justified due to the TDS non-compliance, which was confirmed by both CIT(A) and ITAT. Conversely, the respondent's senior counsel argued that Section 271(1)(c) did not apply to the respondent. After reviewing all submissions and orders, the court found no reason to interfere. Both CIT(A) and ITAT correctly deleted the penalty, noting the disallowance resulted from a technical default in TDS payment, without any indication of income concealment or inaccurate particulars by the assessee.3. The court concluded that both authorities had taken a correct approach in deleting the penalty, as there was no evidence of concealment or inaccurate income reporting by the assessee. Since the issue was a technical default in TDS payment, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the penalty. Therefore, the court decided not to interfere with the appeal, as there was no question of law involved, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
