1981 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai: No penalties if tax paid before penalty levied

FOURTH INCOME-TAX OFFICER Versus DATSON RAVIRAJ & CO. (P.) LTD. AND VICE VERSA

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai ruled in a group of appeals concerning delayed payment of taxes deducted at source and penalties under section 221(1). ... - Issues:- Delay in payment of taxes deducted at source- Levy of penalties under section 221(1)- Interpretation of the law regarding tax deduction at source- Application of circulars issued by the BoardAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved a group of appeals and cross-objections related to the delay in payment of taxes deducted at source, specifically focusing on penalties levied under section 221(1) and the interpretation of tax deduction laws. The assessee, a private limited company, had made payments by way of salary and commission to directors and salesmen during various assessment years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found a delay in the payment of taxes deducted at source and levied penalties for the delay, along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) canceled the penalties based on a Board circular issued in 1963, stating that no penalty was leviable if the tax had been paid before the penalty was levied.The department appealed the cancellation of penalties, arguing that an Explanation inserted in section 221 effective from 1-12-1975 allowed for penalty even if the tax had been paid before the penalty was levied. The assessee contended that the amendment came into effect only from 1-10-1975, and the penalties should be canceled based on the law before that date. The assessee argued that there was no default as the commission payments were made after auditing the accounts, and taxes were immediately deducted and paid to the Government. They also highlighted the application of circulars issued in 1963 and 1975 regarding penalty provisions.The Tribunal, after considering the merits of the case, concluded that no penalty should have been levied. They noted that the commission payments could only be ascertained after the accounts were completed, leading to a necessary delay in payments. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation of section 192, stating that tax deduction is required only when actual payment is made, not just when amounts are credited to accounts. Therefore, they upheld the cancellation of penalties for the relevant years.In the appeal for the year 1976-77, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as the earlier years, leading to the dismissal of departmental appeals and the allowance of the assessee's appeal and cross-objections. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the specific provisions of tax deduction laws and circulars issued by the Board while determining the applicability of penalties for delayed tax payments.