TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. I.T.A No. 1 2010-11 227/Coch/2015 26/2016 2 2011-12 228/Coch/2015 34/2016 3 2012-13 229/Coch/2015 52/2016 2. Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel Mr.Christopher Abraham for respondents. 3. The instant appeals raise the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the explanation offered by the appellant could have been considered positively under Sec.273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate the distinction provided under Sec.273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vis-à-vis the cases covered by Sec.271C (1) (a) and the imposition of penalty for the delayed deposit of the TDS deducted by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the instant case it is a situation where the assessee had deducted tax at source and failed to remit the same to the Central Government Account in time. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Classic Concepts Home India Pvt Ltd (supra) had categorically held that in a case where tax has been deducted but not paid within the time limit prescribed under the law, reasonable cause mentioned u/s 273B would not come to the rescue of the assessee. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271C of the Act. It is ordered accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax[2010 KHC 6118 =2010(1)KLT SN 66]? Does the law declared by the Division Bench in U.S.Technologies case(cited supra) and the one in Classic Concepts Home India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax[(2016)383 ITR 626 (Ker.)] reflect the correct position of law? These are the points to be clarified by this Court in the appeals preferred by the assessee, raising substantial questions of law under Section 260A of the Act." and thereafter the following paras answering the reference in the Full Bench judgment are read out: 33. The next point to be considered is with regard to the observation/finding rendered by the Bench in U.S. Technologies case, holding that failure to remit the tax after deducting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benefit of Section 273B even in a case covered by Sec.271C(1)(b)(failure to remit the tax deducted at source), despite the fact that it m ay be a more serious default, than the failure to deduct the tax at source. XXX XXX XXX 36. From the above, it is crystal-clear that, once the burden is discharged by the person/assessee as to the existence of good and sufficient reason for not complying with the stipulation under Section 271C, it is for the authorities to consider with proper application of mind, whether the penalty is to be waived or reduced, based on the facts and circumstances. 37. Section 271C of the Income Tax Act is quite categoric. Its scope and extent of application is discernible from the provision itself, in unambiguo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statute' is an important question. XXX XXX XXX 44. Having answered the reference as above, the question is whether anything survives to be considered. It is quite open for this Court to decide the merit as well, by virtue of the specific power conferred under 'Section 7' of the Kerala High Court Act, instead of having the case sent back to the same/appropriate Bench for further consideration, after answering the reference. In view of our declaration that non- remittance of tax deducted at source as in the instant case (which comes under Section 194C of Chapter XVIIB of the Act) is not covered by Section 271C(1)(b) of the ct to attract penalty, nothing remains to be considered further, either by the Tribunal or by this Court ....