Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Shri Ramit Vohra, Prop. M/s. Impact Enterprises, 9210/5, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle : 63 (1) New Delhi.
 Smt. Bhavana Jain, Prop. M/s Akash Metal Industries, outside Barsi Gate, Hansi, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar, Haryana
 M/s Pearey Lal & Sons (E.P.) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak.
 Rajvanti Devi R/o Liwan Sonipat w/o Phool Kumar 96, R Model Town, Sonipat. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonipat.
 M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
 Ram Naresh Sikarwar, Ballabgarh. Vs. ITO, Ward-II(2), Faridabad.
 District Manager, HAFED, Site No.01, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal, Haryana
 Ravi Kumar Verma C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, 115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Uttar Pradesh Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Mewat
 Poonam Jain, A-2/15, F.F., Phase-3 Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Ito, Ward 34(4), Room No. 713, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi
 AKT IMPEX PVT. LTD., D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI Vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), NEW DELHI
 Nitin Gupta Shree Ji Jewellers, Shop No. 1168/3 and 4, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk Vs. ITO Ward-47(4) New Delhi
 MG Metalloy Pvt. Ltd, B-16, Sector-2, Noida Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida
 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 36(1), New Delhi. Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Sawhney, C-56, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.
 MR. SUBHASH CHANDER, C/O SURAJ BHAN NAIN, ADVOCATE, H.NO. 203, SECTOR-27, GURUGRAM, HARYANA Vs. ITO, WARD-4, HISAR
 Ranjan Kumar Ghai RRA Tax India D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi VS. DCIT Central Circle-I Gurgaon

District Manager, HAFED, Site No.01, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal, Haryana
September, 02nd 2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.939/Del/2018

Assessment Year : 2010-11

District Manager, vs JCIT,

HAFED, Site No.01, TDS Range,

Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Karnal, Haryana.

Kurukshetra, Haryana,

PAN-AAAJH0022R.

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by Sh. Kulwant Rai Chhabra, Adv.

Respondent by Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing 24.08.2021

Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2021

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2010-11
is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 16.11.2017. The
assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “Order passed by Ld.JCIT TDS and CIT(A) are illegal, arbitrary and
bad in law.

2. On facts and in circumstances of the case Ld. JCIT and CIT(A) were
not justified in imposing penalty of Rs.6,32,267/- u/s 271C of the I.T.Act
on the default which was bonafide and of technical nature.

3. On facts and in circumstances of the case Ld. JCIT and CIT(A) were
not justified in imposing penalty of Rs.6,32,267/- u/s 271C of the I.T.Act
on the default which was due to late deposit of TDS and the same was
deposited during the same Financial Year.”
ITA No.939/Del/2018
Assessment Year : 2010-11

2. The only effective ground is against sustaining the penalty of
Rs.6,32,267/- imposed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that “TDS” inspection was
carried out on 04.02.2010 at the premises of the assessee. Thereafter, order
u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 24.02.2010 declaring assessee’s
in default for non-deduction of tax at source on payment of rent. The
Assessing Officer, thereafter, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the
Act, by issuing show cause notice dated 19.10.2011. In response thereto, the
Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed its reply.
However, the explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the
Assessing Officer and he proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.6,32,267/- u/s
271C of the Act.

4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred the present appeal before
Ld.CIT(A) who also sustained the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the
assessee.

5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before this
Tribunal.

6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before
Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non-deduction of tax
was not deliberate. It was under the bonafide belief that the assessee was not
liable to deduct tax. It is submitted that the payment was made for booking of
space only. Hence, it was believed that no tax is required to be paid on such
payment. He further submitted that the assessee being instrumentality of
Government would not evade tax. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as

Page | 2
ITA No.939/Del/2018
Assessment Year : 2010-11

soon as it cause to the notice of the assessee that the assessee was required to
deduct tax. The assessee deposited the entire tax and interest thereon in the
Government account. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on
the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola
Beverages Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 163 Taxman 355 (SC) to buttress the
contention that the tax alongwith interest thereon, has been paid. Moreover,
the deductee has disclosed the amount in its return of income. In these
circumstances, no penalty ought to have been imposed on the assessee. He
further submitted that the authorities below have not considered the case law
as relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee during the first appellate
proceedings.

7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the
orders of the authorities below. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that only explanation
offered by the assessee is with regard to payment made to the owner of the
spaces in the nature of advance for booking of space. The assessee was
required to deduct tax on payment of Rs.27,90,240/- as made to M/s Haryana
Warehousing Corporation. Hence, the Assessing Officer has rightly held that
the assessee in default and proceeded to impose penalty u/s 271C of the Act.
The entire story as now stated by Ld. Counsel for the assessee is after thought
to avoid the rigours of section 271C of the Act. The assessee has grossly failed
to prove its bonafide for non-deduction of tax on source on the payment made
which was essentially advance rent.

8. We have heard contentions of both Authorized representatives and
perused the material available on record. The only explanation for non-

Page | 3
ITA No.939/Del/2018
Assessment Year : 2010-11

deduction of tax by the assessee is that the amount paid to M/s. Haryana Ware
Housing Corporation was booking advance for the space. Further, it is also
stated that under the bonafide belief that no tax is liable to be deducted on
such amount, the assessee did not deduct tax. When it came to the notice of
the assessee, the entire amount alongwith interest thereon was duly deposited
with the Government account. In these facts and circumstances, it was argued
that there is no loss of revenue hence, penalty u/s 271C ought not to have
been imposed and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). It is argued that the assessee
has demonstrated bonafide reason for non-deduction of tax, therefore,
authorities below ought not to have imposed the penalty in terms of section
273B of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on the
judgement of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT (supra) to buttress
the contention where the assessee has deposited tax and interest thereon and
disclosed the income in the return of income, no disallowance is called for. It is
further stated that Haryana Ware Housing Corporation has also disclosed this
income and due taxes have already been paid.

8.1. Looking to the peculiarity of the case and coupled with the fact that due
taxes alongwith interest thereon, have been deposited in the Government
account. This fact is not controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative.
Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee has
demonstrated the bonafide for non-deducting the tax. We, therefore, direct the
Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.6,32,267/- imposed u/s 271C of
the Act. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Page | 4
ITA No.939/Del/2018
Assessment Year : 2010-11

9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the
presence of both the parties on 31st August, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT)
(DR. B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
*Amit Kumar* ITAT, NEW DELHI

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT

Page | 5

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting