"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 483/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 & SA No. 82/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Fulcrum ALM Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1, Ground Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon-122002 Vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCF5782B Assessee by : Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Gagandeep, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 483/Del/2025 with it’s stay application SA No. 82/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071999641(1) dated 08.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. ITA No. 483/Del/2025 SA No. 82/Del/2025 Fulcrum ALM Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities herein have levied section 271(1)(c) penalty amounting to Rs.77,08,652/-, in Assessing Officer’s order dated 15.03.2022 which has been partly affirmed in the lower appellate order qua section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.1,61,91,243/- and remaining head of Rs.2,33,139/-, respectively. 3.1 This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement contentions reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty. 5. Suffice to say, there could be hardly any dispute that the impugned penalty indeed pertains to the major issue of section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.1,65,91,243/- which was made by the learned lower authorities on account of non-deduction of TDS on payments made to the assessee’s US based associated enterprises. The Revenue’s stand accordingly is that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS on the said payment(s) and it’s default to this effect indeed renders it liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 483/Del/2025 SA No. 82/Del/2025 Fulcrum ALM Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 3 6. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing contentions. This is for the precise reason that hon’ble apex court landmark decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the issue long back that such a quantum disallowance/addition does not ipso facto attract the impugned penalty proceedings since involving bonafide claim. We adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein as well to conclude that once the issue of non-deduction of TDS was a debatable one during assessment which was finally accepted at the assessee’s behest would neither attract concealment nor that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We thus accept the assessee’s sole substantive ground to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s stay application SA No. 82/Del/2025 stands rendered infructuous. ITA No. 483/Del/2025 SA No. 82/Del/2025 Fulcrum ALM Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 4 8. To sum up, this assessee’s appeal ITA No. 483/Del/2025 is allowed and SA No 82/Del/2025 is dismissed as rendered in fructuous in the foregoing terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27/02/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "