TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the TDS made thereon was deposited in the Government's account after the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the delay in depositing the TDS occurred due to technical change in the method of depositing TDS which was beyond the control of the assessee." 4. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the relevant material on record inter alia the assessment order of the ld. CIT(A), paper book filed by the assessee alongwith written synopsis spread over 10 pages. 5. The assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y 2008- 09 on 23.10.2008 and the A.O, while framing the assessment, had disallowed an amount of Rs. 58,86,151/- u/s 40(A)(ia) of the Incometax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] due to non deposit of tax before 30.9.2008. The ld. AR further submitted that as per new rule, electronic payment of tax was made compulsory w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and the assessee was regularly depositing the tax through cheque till mid of September 2008 and when the assessee tried to deposit TDS through cheque, but the company refused to accept same by way of cheq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal High Court of Delhi in the case of Woodward Governors India [P] Ltd Vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 745 [Delhi] for the purpose of application of section 273C in the backdrop of section 273B of ht Act, which is applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. To support the above contentions, the ld. AR has also placed reliance on the ratio and proposition of the following decisions : 1. Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002] 253 ITR 0745 2. Escorts Ltd. v. CIT (2002] 257 ITR 468 (Del] 3. SC Krishnaswamy S. Pd. V. Union of India 281 ITR 305 (2006] 4. Life Insurance Corporation of India 219 ITR 410 (1996] 5. ACIT v. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. (Hyd) 56 ITD 164 6. ACIT v. Sri. Ramachandra 128 TTJ 408 (2010] (ITAT Chennai] 7. Jagdish Malpani v. ACIT 94 TTJ 321 (ITAT Indore) 7. The ld. counsel of the Revenue, replying to the above contentions, submitted that the TDS was actually deposited on 7.10.2008 and not on 3.10.2008 by cheque. He further pointed out that the TDS was deducted in the month of March 2008 but the same was not deposited immediately which does not show the bonafide of the assessee. The ld. counsel of the Revenue also contended that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Escorts Ltd Vs. CIT [supra] wherein referring to the maxim 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' it has been held that the law does not compel a man to do which he could possibly perform. In the present case also, the assessee made several efforts to deposit TDS with prescribed time frame but there was delay of three days. In our opinion, when the online payment facility could not be activated by the bank and the two days lapsed due to the bank and public holiday, then the deposit of tax on the very next working day i.e. 3.10.2008 also establishes the bonafide and sincere efforts on the part of the assessee and the authorities below ignored the vital points of fact and circumstances leading to delay in depositing TDS. 11. In the order of the ITAT Chennai Bench, in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Ram Chandra [supra] as relied by the assessee, it was held thus: " In the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. v. Union of India [2006] 201 CTR (SCI 183 : [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the maxim actus curiae neminem garvabit, i.e., an act of Court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by law, impossibility of performance is a good excuse. The law itself and the administration of it, said Sir W. Scott, with reference to an alleged infraction of the Revenue laws, must yield to that to which everything must bend, to necessity; the law, in its most positive and peremptory injunctions, is understood to disclaim, as it does in it general aphorisms, all intentions of compelling to impossibilities, and the administration of laws must adopt that general exception in the consideration of all particular cases (page No. 162 of 'Brooms Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., by Herberts Broom, LL.D). There is also no dispute that provision laid down under Section 80 of the IT Act is a machinery provision and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. National' Taj Traders (supra), relied on by the learned Authorised Representative, rule of strict construction applies only to charging provision or one imposing penalty and not machinery provisions. We thus are of the definite view that there was sufficient reason beyond his power and control with the assessee for delay in filing the return and the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly ....