TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961 to the extent of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 13,220/-, though penalty late with Government Treasury. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that initiation of proceedings under section 271C were based on frivolous complaint in which the complainant had stated that TDS of Rs. 50,000/- has been deducted on commission payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was demonstrated to be factually incorrect. 3. That without prejudice in any way of the matter, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the assessee was not prevented by a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Income Tax Act,1961 before confirming the penalty to the extent of Rs. 13,220/- 2. This is a rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this information, a letter was issued to the assessee, requiring it to file the corrected form 24Q/26Q. Further, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee, requiring it to explain as to why penalty under section 271C may not be levied, to which there was no compliance. Hence the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under section 271C of the Act. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the submission of the assessee was that the total commission paid by it to Shri Ravi Kumar, during the year, was only Rs. 1,32,198/- and due tax was deducted and the same was reflecting in the Form 26AS of the deductee. The assessee also filed copy of Form 16A downloaded from the TRACES website before the ld. CIT(A), along with com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough a very bad phase and the Chairman of the group, alongwith two senior Directors, were confined to jail pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, since March, 2014, which had disrupted the regular business activities of the group and hence caused the delay in the deposit of the tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on various case laws, which we shall presently discuss. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, placing strong reliance on the impugned order, has submitted that the TDS was deducted during financial year 2014-15 and it was deposited on 28/10/2016, i.e., after a delay of approximately two years; and that therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the penalty under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ault. Only interest on delayed payment under section 201(1A) of the Act can be charged. In the light of these decisions, where the assessee has made payment of TDS though late, he cannot be held to be in default and so, there is no question of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act. 11. In 'CIT vs. Bank of Nova Sotia', 380 ITR 550 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty levied under section 271C, wherein, the Tribunal had held as under: "We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case we are not dealing with collection of tax u/s 201(1) or compensatory interest u/s 201(1A). The case of the assessee is that these amounts have already been paid so a....