TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal (extracted from ITA No.2317/Ahd/2011):- (1) That, the Penalty Order made by ld.JCIT(TDS), Surat and the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law/facts, illegal, without jurisdiction, and needs to be quashed. (2) That, the ld.JCIT(TDS), Surat and the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law/facts in levying penalty U/s.271C of the Act. (3) That, the Penalty Order made without considering reply of the Appellant, Against the facts of the case as well as settled law be vacated and penalty be remitted.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gement for filing of the appeals was made by handdelivery on 12/09/2011 to Mr.Rajabh Yusuf Agharia Sr.clerk of the appellant-bank, but could reach to concerned Asstt.Registrar ITAT only after the close of office and appeal was filed on 13/09/2011 early morning by hand-delivery at 10.30 AM. In support of the same, the assessee-bank has filed an Affidavit dated 17/09/2011 of Mr.Imdadali Sharif Nandoliya employee of the assessee-bank. Thus, the delay in filing the appeals as claimed unintentional and bona fide one. Thus, Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time. On the other hand, the ld.DR opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeals and supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 3.1. After going through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MICR charges of Rs. 12,270/-. 4.1. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority and the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted (through written submissions) that the penalty levied by the lower authorities is not justified under the provisions of section 271C of the Act. In this regard, the main contention of the ld.AR, among others, was that where tax has already been paid by the payee, no penalty could be levied on the assessee-payer for the failure to deduct the tax at source as held in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd.a vs. ITO (2005) 3 SOT 627 (Bang.). So, penalty in question be deleted in all the years. On the other hand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantiated by SBI's letter dated 27/06/2011 inter-alia stated as under:- "We have recovered processing charges from all the clearing members of Surat Bankers' clearing house. We have paid tax on the processing charges recovered at our apex level from A.Y. 2003-04 to 2010-11." Thus, it is very much clear that assessee was under no obligation to pay Differential TDS due to change in Interpretation of statute and section as on dated of order i.e. 15/02/2010. And, hence not to be defined as "Assessee in Default". 4.2.1. For delayed payment of TDS, interest was paid by the assessee on 29/03/2010 for following years:- "S.No. Assessment Year Interest Amount Date of payment 1. 2003-04 382.00 29/03/2010 2. 2004-05 201.00 29/03....