TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61. 2. confirming the above penalty on the ground that the eventhough the appellant had claimed that the parties to whom payments were made had paid the taxes whereever applicable in their individual capacity, the appellant had not submitted any documents in support of the same. 3. confirming the above penalty on the ground that the penalty order dated 30.10.2014 was not time barred as contended by the appellant since the penalty proceedings were initiated by the JCIT (TDS) vide his show cause notice dated 2.4.2014 as against the stand of the appellant that the penalty proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer vide his communication dated 22.6.2012 to the JCIT (TDS) and hence, the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the JCIT (TDS) was not within the limitation laid down u/s, 275 (1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. 4. confirming the above penalty on the ground that there was no reasonable ground for not deducting the lax at source as against the stand of the appellant that it had no business income and hence, it had not claimed any deduction on account of interest paid and hence, no tax was deducted on the same & as such, it was a reasonable ground for not deducting the tax at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee was liable to make TDS on the said payments. However, the assessee had not made any TDS and therefore, the AO observed that she was liable to penalty u/s 271C of the Act. The AO vide his officer letter dated 26.06.2012 intimated the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Range-3, Mumbai (the JCIT) about the two defaults. In response to a query raised by the JCIT vide letter dated 02.04.2014 to explain as to why penalty u/s 271C should not be imposed, the assessee filed a reply dated 29.04.2014, which has been extracted at para 3 of the penalty order dated 30.10.2010. The assessee filed another submission dated 27.05.2014 that she is in the process of collecting documents relating to income tax returns filed by payees to whom the assessee had made various payments and requested for some more time to present her case. That the assessee failed to file any information, the JCIT further gave time to file those details by 27.10.2014. In response to it the AR of the assessee failed to file those details. After observing that the assessee being an educated person and income tax payee and despite being fully aware of the provisions of the Act, chose to commit default by not ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee files a Paper Book (P/B) containing (i) Written submissions dtd. 16.11.2018, (ii) Assessment order dtd. 24.12.2010, (iii) CIT(A)-32 order dtd. 24.08.2011 for AY 2008-09, (iv) Decision no. 2014] 161 TTJ 11 (Jp-Trib), (v) Copy of return and accounts for the year ended 31.03.2008, (vi) Details of the recipients of interest with copy of their return, (vii) Decision in (2005) 3 SOT 627 (Bang-Trib), (viii) Details of the payments to non-residents for property and the copies of their return, (ix) Decision in (2015) TIOL-843 ITAT-AHE, (x) Decision in (2012) TIOL 626 ITAT-Hyd and (xi) Decision in (2012) 50 SOT 146 (ITAT-Cochin). The Ld. counsel submits that since the penalty proceedings u/s 271C were initiated by the AO on 22.06.2012 by referring the matter to the JCIT, penalty order should have been passed by the JCIT on or before 31.12.2012 i.e. within 6 months from 01.07.2012 and since the penalty order was passed on 30.10.2014, the said order is clearly time-barred. Reliance is placed by him and the decision in MDC University v. ACIT (2014) 161 TTJ 11 (JP-Trib-UO), PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Del), PCIT v. JKD Capital &Finlees Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 61....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons, their address, amount and their PAN was filed. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 3 SOT 627 (Bang-Trib). It is further stated that the first proviso to section 201(1) as also Rule 31ACB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and were not applicable for the assessment year prior to that date. As such, the question of filing Form 26A in terms of Rule 31ACB did not arise for the AY 2008-09 in the present case. As far as the tax deductible from the payment to non-resident of Rs. 8.87 crore is concerned, the Ld. counsel submits that tax is deductible in terms of section 195 in the case of non-resident only in respect of other sum chargeable under the Act. In the present case, the sellers had already offered the sale price for taxation by investing the money in capital bonds to the extent allowed and had paid the tax on the balance amount. As such, there was no revenue loss and hence penalty u/s 271C was un-called for having regard to section 273B of the Act. It is stated that the relevant documents of the sellers showing amount paid to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal are discussed together as they address a common issue.In the case of Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. (supra), relied on by the Ld. counsel, pursuant to a search operation, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. Before issuance of notice u/s 153A, approval of the JCIT would have been taken for issuing the notice u/s 153A. There was no initiation of penalty proceedings. More than 6 months thereafter, on 23.07.2012, the AO made a reference to the Addl. CIT on the basis of which a notice was issued on 28.08.2012 by the JCIT asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not levied u/s 271D and 271E of the Act as a result of the contravention of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. A further notice was sent on 25.09.2012 seeking the assessee's reply, which ultimately was submitted on 10.10.2012. In the reply itself, the assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. The short question before the Hon'ble High Court urged by the Revenue was "whether the ITAT erred in law by holding that the order imposing the penalty was not passed within the time limit laid down u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act?". The Hon'ble High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued a notice dated 03.09.2003 to the assessee. The reply filed by the assessee was not accepted by the Joint Commissioner, and he imposed penalty u/s 271E vide order dated 29.03.2004. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed. On second appeal the Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable, since it was a time barring matter and there was no passing of the money. On appeal to the High Court, the revenue contended that 6 month period was to be calculated from the date of the notice issued by the Joint Commission who was competent to levy the penalty u/s 271E and, therefore, penalty order was passed within time. On further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court held : "6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the notice for the levy of penalty under section 271E of the Act was issued by the Income-tax Officer on 1-8-2003 and by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax on 3-9-2004. It means that the proceeding has been initiated in the financial year 2003-04 which ended on 31-3-2004. Thus, the penalty order could be passed by 31-3-2004. If the limitation is calculated on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the matter was referred to the Joint Commissioner who passed orders on 29.7.2008 levying penalty. 10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear that the competent authority to levy penalty being the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, only the Joint Commissioner can initiate proceedings for levy of penalty. Such initiation of proceedings could not have been done by the Assessing Officer. The statement in the assessment order that the proceedings under Section 271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is only with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner to the assessee to which he has filed his reply. 11. The only case of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest on securities', is required to deduct tax thereon at the rates in force. Tax is to be deducted either at the time of payment of interest in cash or by issue of cheque or draft or any other mode or credit of it to any account, whichever is earlier. As per section 194H any person, who is responsible for paying, to a resident, any income by way of commission or brokerage, shall, deduct income tax thereon. It will be deducted at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or to any account, whether called suspense account or by any other name or at the time of payment of such income in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier. As per section 195 any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC or section 194LD) or any sum chargeable under this Act (other than salary) shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereon in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier deduct income tax thereon at the rates in....