Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs  Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 2713/DEL/2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/01/2020
Related Assessment Year : 2004-05
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs  ACIT  (ITAT Delhi)

We find that on the issue of reasonable cause u/s.273B, assessee does has a prima facie case, because as per the CBDT Circular No. 275 dated 21.09.1994, it has been clarified that responsibility for making deduction tax at source u/s. 194A should be that of Collector (Land Acquisition) or any authority empowered under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 who acquires the land for the public purpose. When concerned parties whose land has been acquired, go to the Court of law seeking higher compensation with interest and if the court allows the claim then the concerned authority which had acquired the land, shall, while paying the compensation deduct tax at source on the amount of interest bearing part of the compensation and deposit the remaining amount with the court of law with disbursement to the successful litigant. Hence the same authority was required to issue TDS certificate to the concerned parties. As per the documents submitted by the assessee before the authorities below, the assessee has filed the proof that the payment was not made in the name of land owner but was made in the name of Special Judge, Ghaziabad. Apart from that, assessee have being a State Government Authority had made the payments in the name of Special Judge, Ghaziabad and not to any person directly on which TDS was to be deducted. Under these circumstances it cannot be held that non deduction of TDS was intentional and there was no reasonable cause. Once there is a bonafide dispute as to who is liable to deduct TDS, then it cannot be held that there is a contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Nova Scotia (supra) wherein it has been held that in absence of any finding that the assessee had deliberately avoid the TDS provision and there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee then no penalty could be levied. Accordingly, the penalty under section 271C levied by the ld. Assessing Officer is deleted on the ground that there was bona fide and reasonable cause in not deducting the TDS. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar in relation to penalty proceedings u/s.271C whereby Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the penalty of Rs.6,03,857/-.

2. The facts in brief are that an interest of Rs.57,87,227/- on enhanced compensation against land acquisition in Govindpuram Scheme, Ghaziabad was paid through Court to various persons during the Financial Year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer observed that no TDS has been deducted on the interest payment u/s.194A by the Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad who was the person responsible to deduct tax at source. In the original order u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A), the assessee was found to be in default and the said order was confirmed by the Tribunal also. However, before the Tribunal assessee has raised chargeability of compensation among many assessment years, which was not raised earlier. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer on the issue of chargeability of compensation among many assessment years. However, in the set aside proceedings as per the Assessing Officer none appeared on behalf of the assessee and assessee having failed to furnish evidence that the compensation pertains to different assessment years. He held that interest on enhancement compensation paid by the assessee relates to financial year, i.e., Assessment Year 2004-05. Accordingly, he raise the demand of Rs.10,74,795/- which included amount of TDS at the interest u/s.201(1A), thereafter penalty proceedings u/s.271C was initiated. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter in his impugned penalty order has levied the penalty of Rs.6,03,857/- u/s.271C.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

Mr.Kapil Goel B.Com(H) FCA LLB, Advocate Delhi High Court [email protected], 9910272804 Mr Goel is a bachelor of commerce from Delhi University (2003) and is a Law Graduate from Merrut University (2006) and Fellow member of ICAI (Nov 2004). At present, he is practicing as an Advocate View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Section 148 Notice Invalid; Should Have Followed Faceless Regime: Section 151A Notes of account do form part of Balance Sheet: Supreme Court Bombay HC Quashes AY 2013-14 Notices Post 31-03-2021, Rules TOLA Not Applicable PCIT Central not competent authority u/s 12AB(1) to pass order on registration of Trust No Denial of Concessional Tax Rate Due to Technical Glitch on ITBA portal View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031