TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-08 to 2010-11. The details of the amount of outstanding demands for captioned four assessment years are as under :- Assessment Year Penalty Demand u/s 271C 2007-08 50,49,551/- 2008-09 80,78,569/- 2009-10 6,35,25,863/- 2010-11 6,43,36,230/- 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee contended that assessee is in the business of providing telecom services across India and the income-tax authorities held that assessee was liable to deduct TDS on discounts allowed to the pre-paid SIM card distributors in terms of section 194H of the Act. Initially, the Assessing Officer held the assessee-in-default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for not deducting tax at source on discount allowed to pre-paid distribut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Ltd., 325 ITR 148 (Delhi). It was pointed out that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held in favour of the assessee's stand after considering the earlier contrary judgements of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was therefore contended that so far as the present proceedings are concerned, which relating to the levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act, it could not be considered that the act of the assessee of not deducting the tax at source was bereft of any reasonable cause. In support of the said proposition the following chart has been furnished :- Financial Year Assessment Year Date of Order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act Date of Order passed u/s 271C of the Act Decision prevailing during that period Date of Order of the said dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, it is sought to be pointed out that under these circumstances, assessee had a good prima-facie case to demonstrate that if at all there was a failure to deduct the tax at source u/s 194H of the Act, such failure was for a reasonable cause and therefore no penalty u/s 271C of the Act is leviable. Coming to the quantum of outstanding demand, the Ld. Representative pointed out that the CIT(A) in para 19 of his order has directed the Assessing Officer to allow appropriate relief to the assessee by applying the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). As per the Ld. Representative, the CIT(A) has held that assessee could not be treated as an assessee-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A), can be tested only after it is crystallized as to whether or not assessee was required to deduct the tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. The appeals relating to the quantum proceedings against the orders passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act are in the course of hearing before the Tribunal and according to the Ld. CIT-DR, the merits of the issue shall only be appraised therein. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. No doubt, in so far as the merit or other of the levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act is concerned, the same shall be a subject-matter of consideration when the corresponding appeals of the assessee shall be heard by the Tribunal. So however, in so far as it is necessary to appraise the prima-facie nature of....