Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

October 2016

[2016] 73 taxmann.com 36 (Mum – Trib.) Kamlesh M. Kanungo HUF v. DCIT- TDS ITA Nos.: 4045 & 4046 (Mum) of 2015 A.Ys.: 2011-12 and 2012-13, Dated: 19.09.2016

By C. N. Vaze
Shailesh Kamdar
Jagdish T. Punjabi
Bhadresh Doshi
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 3 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

S. 221 r.w.s. 201  – For the purposes of Explanation below section 221(1) which prescribes that an assessee shall not cease to be liable to penalty under sub-section (1) of section 221 merely by reason of the fact that before levy of such penalty, he has paid tax a distinction has to be made between  a case where the TDS is deposited suo motu before any proceedings are initiated by the AO and a case where the deposit of the TDS is made after initiation of proceedings by the AO but before levy of penalty.  

FACTS:

The assessee HUF deducted income-tax amounting to Rs. 1,71,88,352 under section 194A of the Act but did not deposit it by due date which was 31.5.2011 but deposited it only on 30.6.2011 along with interest. 

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied penalty of Rs. 5,10,000 which was equivalent to 3% of the defaulted amount of TDS. 

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who upheld the action of the AO by noticing that non-deposit of requisite TDS to the Government Treasury was an admitted position.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD: 

The Tribunal observed that the proviso to section 221(1) clearly suggests that the levy of penalty under section 221(1) is not automatic and that the AO is empowered to use his discretion not to levy penalty if the default is for good and sufficient reasons. It noted that the bonafides of the assessee in complying with the requirements of depositing the tax into the Government Treasury stood established in as much as the tax had been deposited even before the corresponding interest amounts were paid to the respective creditors and also before any proceedings were initiated by the AO. 

The Tribunal held that the Explanation below section 221(1) refers to a situation where the tax has been paid “before the levy of such penalty”, whereas in the facts of the present case the assessee had deposited the requisite TDS along with applicable interest into the Government Treasury even before any proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act were initiated by the AO.  Considering the penal nature of section 221 it would be in the fitness of things to make a distinction between a case where the TDS is deposited suo motu before any proceedings are initiated by the AO and a case where the deposit of TDS is made after initiation of proceedings by the AO but before levy of penalty.  It held that the Explanation will not militate against the assessee because of this distinction.   The Tribunal held that there existed ‘good and sufficient reasons’ to mitigate the default in question, and thus, the proviso to section 221(1) of the Act clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 221(1) r.w.s. 201(1) of the Act by the AO.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

You May Also Like