TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason that there was delay caused in depositing the tax deducted at source for the financial year 2009-2010. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee had preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) rejected the appeals filed by the assessee. On further appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal found that there was reasonable cause for delay in payment of TDS to the credit of the Central Government account. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty orders passed by the Assessing Authority u/s 271C of the I.T.Act and allowed the appeals of the assessee. 3. Thereafter the Revenue has filed the Miscellaneous Applications seeking to recall the orders of the ITAT on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal was arri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Income tax Act,1961 was passed on 14.01.2010 by DCIT(TDS), for the Financial Year-2009-10 (AY-2010-11) holding the assessee as a defaulter, quantifying the demand payable to the tune of Rs. 16,15,640/-. The payment was made only on 23.03.10 & 29.03.2010 and not suo-moto as claimed by the assessee but as per order u/s.201(1) passed on 14.01.2010 [exhibit-31 and in reply to this office notice No.CHNM015628/ Recovery/DCIT(TDSJ/Kochi/2009-10/16 dated 04.03.2010 the assessee has informed that they have remitted the Tax on the above dates. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee never put forth the above mentioned ground as a defence before the learned CIT (Appeals). The Hon'ble ITAT has awarded the decision in favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is-lead the Hon'ble ITAT by stating that the Department has not issued order u/s.201(l} before initiation of penalty u/s.271C. Moreover, the judgment in Civil Appeal No.3765 of 2007 arising out of SLP(c) No.3883 of 2007, Supreme Court of India, has explained in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd V. Joint CIT[2004] 90 ITD 720 (Delhi) with the following observations: "Be that as it may, the circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.01.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized u/s.201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax depositor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such a case, the provisions of Sec.271C of the Income Tax Act are fully applicable". In view of the above facts, it is inferred that there was no reasonable cause for the assessee to be aggrieved by the imposition of penalty. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that invoking provisions of Sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, the latest order of the learned Tribunal dated 20.05.2016 may kindly be recalled as it is based on misrepresented facts and the grounds put forth by the Department may be decided upon merit." 4. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the MAs filed by the Revenue. 5. The learned AR, on the other hand, had filed a brief written submission, wherein it has been contended that the primary reason for allowi....