TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeals is identical, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by a combined order for the sake of convenience. 2. In respect of financial year 2011-12, Assessing Officer noticed during the course of survey operations that the assessee has been postponing the remittance of TDS; though tax to the tune of Rs. 1.15 crores was deducted during the financial year 2011-12, assessee did not remit the same into the Government of India account. Since there was delay in the remittance of TDS to the Government (TDS) Account, assessee was deemed to be in default in respect of such tax and simple interest was levied on the defaulted amount. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated under S.221 of the Act, by stating that the amount, which was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e policies and patients referred by Government agencies like CGHS, ESIC, Arogya Sree, APSRTC, Singareni Collieries, South Central Railway etc.; while normal credit period for collection from insurance companies, is around three months, from government entities it is four to six months; delay in realisation of the revenue is further aggravated by the pressure from the creditors for drugs and disposables for which the assessee was granted a credit period of only two months (In fact, most of the suppliers were not interested in offering credit); assessee suffered from severe cash flow problem and had to struggle to make funds available even to meet its regular operating expenditure, which resulted in delayed remittance of TDS. It was also cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.221 provides for non-levy of penalty; if the assessee is able to give good and sufficient reason for non-remittance of tax and in the given circumstances, the assessee is prevented by good and sufficient cause in which event penalty should not be levied. In this regard, the learned CIT(A) relied upon the following decisions- (1) CIT V/s. Bhikaji Ramchandra (183 ITR 478)-Bom (2) CIT V/s. Chembara Peak Estates Ltd. (183 ITR 471)-Ker (3) CIT V/s. Raunaq & Co. (P) Ltd. (140 ITR 407)-Del (4) Hindustan Steel Ltd. V/s. State of Orissa (83 ITRT 26)-SC (5) CIT V/s. Munnilal & Company (204 CTR (Raj) 529 (SC) While summing up, the learned CIT(A) observed that there is good and sufficient cause for not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered under schemes such as ESI, Arogya Sree, etc. and there was a genuine cash crunch, because of which assessee could not make the remittance on time, and the same having been considered by the learned CIT(A), in the absence of placing any evidence to the contrary, the Learned Departmental Representative was not justified in stating that the explanation of the assessee is not valid. He also submitted that he decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) does not come in the way of assessee's plea, since there was a valid explanation given by the assessee. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In the instant case, in these appeals, the plea of the ass....