TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled in quarter Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 of FY 2007-08 to 2013-14, 2015 16 and 2016-17 in Form 26Q/24Q. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated vide notice dated 01.08.2017 and 15.12.2017. 2.1 The ld. AR re-asserted the submissions as were made before the CIT(A) and the ld. DR, on the contrary, relied on the orders of the ld. tax authorities below. A copy of TDS exemption certificate for FY 2011-12 issued by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. was also filed before us showing that TDS exemption certificate u/s 197 of the Act for FY 2011-12 relating to TDS @1% for payment received on rent u/s 194I of the Act was issued and one of the beneficiaries (deductor) was the assessee. 3. The penalty order mentions that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity for explanation and allegedly nothing was brought before the AO to prove any circumstances for non-deduction or non-deposit of tax at source was beyond the control of the assessee company. So penalty was imposed. However, before the CIT(A), in regard to the present assessment year 2012-13 with corresponding financial year 2011-12, the penalty for four quarters totalling to Rs.12,62,791/- was challenged and the details of penalty f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.1,79,191/- under section 194I of the Act. The appellant has deducted tax at source @ 1% of the said party on the basis of lower deduction certificate available with the appellant company. However, the accountant of the appellant company has inadvertently not filled the lower deduction of tax certificate details in TDS returns resulting in demand of short deduction of tax at source of Rs 1.79,191/- as system has calculated liability to deduct tax at source @ 2% on said payments instead of @1%. 5.2 As regards demand of short deduction of tax of Rs 2,84,901/-raised due to "other reasons i.e. Threshold Tax, Rate, etc", in Quarter 3 for the financial year 2011-12, it was submitted that the appellant has made some payments to various parties in which it was liable to deduct tax at source as per the provisions of section 194C and 194I of the Act. Details of said payments made and tax deducted thereon and demand raised of short deduction of tax and reason of short deduction was provided to CIT(A). Further, as regard demand of Rs 2,59,184/ out of total demand of Rs. 2,84,901/-in Quarter 3 for the financial year 2011-12, it is submitted that the appellant has made payment of Rs 2,59,18,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A). Further as regard demand of Rs.2,41,426/ out of total demand of Rs.2,60,193/- in TDS return Form type 26Q in Quarter-4 for the financial year 2011-12, it is submitted that the appellant has made payment of Rs.2,41,42,586/- to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on it has deducted TDS @1% which comes to Rs.2,41,426/- under section 194I of the Act. The appellant has deducted tax at source @ 1% of the said party on the basis of lower deduction certificate available with the appellant company. However, the accountant of the appellant company has inadvertently not filled the lower deduction of tax certificate details in TDS returns resulting in demand of short deduction of tax at source of Rs. 2,41,426/ as system has calculated liability to deduct tax at source @ 2% on said payments instead of @1%.. As regard demand of Rs 4,76,271/- (actual Rs.5,01,380/-) out of total demand of short deduction of tax of Rs 7,46,464/- in Quarter 4 of the financial year 2011-12 in TDS return Form type 24Q, it was submitted that the demand of Rs.5,01,380/- consist of demand of Rs 3,72,003/-due to inadvertent mistake committed by the accountant of the appellant in furnishing PAN of the deductee in TDS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iating the fact that as per the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 every assessment year is separate and distinctive from each other. Ld. DR was unable to justify how common notice for different AY and a common order with a consolidated penalty can be imposed under the Act. In fact the Act mandates filing of quarterly statements of TDS compliances. The provision of penalty u/s 271C of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source sanctions a levy of penalty for each default as the penalty sanctioned to be imposed is 'a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay". Thus every default is a separate cause of action for levy of penalty and since the Act requires filing of relevant returns of TDS compliances periodically, then the competent authority can levy penalty taking cognizance of defaults on the basis of these returns only. Therefore, as per the Act, the penalty notice and proceedings of defaults covered in one reportable period can be clubbed but consolidated penalty notice, penalty proceedings and penalty order u/s 271C of the Act, are not permissible. Thus the consolidated penalty order covering penalty for the relevant AY 2012-13, is not sustai....