TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating that penalty u/s. 271C was levied because the deductor company failed to adhere to the provisions of Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a reference has been received by the Addl. CIT, Range-49, New Delhi from the ITO, Ward 1(3), stating that in the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) for AY 2009-10 the assessee had made payment aggregating to Rs. 2,71,21,666/- on account of unascertained provisions added back to the income of the assessee. As per AO, the assessee failed to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho has also relied upon some of the decision in his impugned order. - CIT vs. Bank of Nova Scotia (SC) - CIT vs. Itochu Corp. (DHC) - CIT vs. Mitsuie & Co. Ltd. (DHC) - Woodword Governors India P. Ltd. vs. CIT (DHC) - Sahara India Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Delhi) 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us, especially the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and the case laws as cited by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute vide his impugned order dated 14.11.2014 and adjudicated the same as under:- "1. I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the facts of the case. I have also considered the submission filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted has suo-motto on its own offered to tax the said expenditure in their regular assessment proceedings. Coupled with that the assessee company has deposited the TDS due alongwith the penal interest amounting to Rs. 21,87,731.00 on 21.02.2011. The delay in payment of the TDS is attributable to the fact that at the time of finalizing the accounts as on 31.03.2009, the assessee company did not have the wherewithal to pay the tax so deducted. On the transactions on which the TDS had not been deducted upto the period ending 31st March 2009 amounting to Rs. 52.44 Lacs, the TDS was deposited on 46.34 Lacs in the year 2009-10. However the fact remains that the assessee company offered the whole amount on which they defaulted in payment of TDS fo....