TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised following grounds of appeal: "1. Impugned order passed U/s 250/271C is bad in law and on facts being against the principal of natural justice and for many more other statutory reasons. 2. Order passed u/s 271C by the ld. Addl.CIT(TDS) is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Further, CIT(A) erred by sustaining the same. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, ld. Addl.CIT (TDS) has erred by levying penalty of Rs. 1,85,680/- u/s 271C further, CIT(A) erred by sustaining the same. The penalty sustained is unjustified, illegal or excessive. 4. That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 2. Rival contentions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act as in absence of accommodation in university premises itself, the employees could have not performed duties and assignment in efficient manner. Therefore, providing accommodation is essential and part & parcel of the work assigned to them. The premises of the assessee are situated at a remote location near Jagatpura, Jaipur, where, there is no proper public transport connectivity and private transport is not available at all. Therefore, it is difficult for the professors and other staff to ensure their presence in time. Under such facts and circumstances, the assessee is obligated provide proper accommodation facilities so as to ensure that they can perform their duties in efficient manner. 5. I further observe that as soon as it ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment. Therefore, as per the ld. AR, penalty u/s 271C cannot imposed. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of 'D' Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Private Limited V/S. JCIT(TDS), Kolkata, I.T.A. No. 413 & 414/Kol/2016 dated 29.11.2017(Case Law # 4), wherein, it is held that:- "6. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that in the present case there was only a short deduction of tax at source and it was not a case of non deduction of tax at source. It is also seen that the short deduction of tax at source was due to a wrong nomenclature under which the accounts department classified the payment for professional services as paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese amounts have already been paid so as to end dispute with Revenue. In the present appeals we are concerned with levy of penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. We find that on similar facts Hon'ble Delhi High Court have deleted levy of penalty u/s 271-C in the case of M/s. Itochu Corporation, reported in 268 ITR 172 (Del) and in the case of CIT Vs. Mitsui & Company Ltd. reported in 272 ITR 545. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd., we allow the assessee's appeal and cancel the penalty as levied u/s 271C." 8. In view of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....falling there under Section 271C falls in the category of such cases. Section 273B states that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty can be fastened only on 44 the person who does not have good and sufficient reason for not deducting tax at source. Only those persons will be liable to penalty who do not have good and sufficient reason for not deducting the tax. The burden, of course, is on the person to prove such good and sufficient reason. In each of the 104 cases before us, we find that non-deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By misconstruing this provision they also did not deduct tax from the interest payable to nonmembers. That is the bonafide mistake which they have committed Their bonfides is demonstrated to the effect that once in a survey the said mistake was notice and pointed out immediately they have paid the tax with interest. Therefore, in the light of this undisputed facts of this case, when the Appellate Commissioner and the ....