The H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd., Shimla V. Addl. CIT, TDS Range, Panchkula

ITA 1544/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6586 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ %! , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1544/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ./ ITA NO.1545/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ./ ITA NO.1546/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 ./ ITA NO.1547/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 & ./ ITA NO.1548/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 THE H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. (HPSEL), TUTU SHIMLA. THE ADDL. CIT-TDS, RANGE PANCHKULA. ./PAN NO: PTLS14450C /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHIN DOGER, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2019 2 /ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY SAME ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1544 TO 1546/CHD/2 018 & ITA NO.1548/CHD/2018 ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA [( IN SHORT CIT(A)] DATED 28.8.2018, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1547/ CHD/2018 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 12.9.2018. 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL TH E APPEALS, IT WAS COMMON GROUND, IS IDENTICAL, BEING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271CA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE AC T, THESE, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING D ISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1544 TO 1546/CHD/2018 & ITA NO.1548/CHD/2018 ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION PERIOD OF 36 DAYS AND THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1547/CHD/2018 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION PERIOD OF 13 DAYS. SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN ALL THE APP EALS. CONSIDERING THE SHORTNESS OF THE DELAY AND THE REAS ONS MENTIONED IN THE APPEALS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 3 3. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BY THE AS SESSEE IS REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271CA OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, H .P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. HAD SOLD CERTAIN SCRAP, WHIC H INCLUDED TRANSFORMER ALSO. HOWEVER, ON THE SALE OF THE SAID TRANSFORMERS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE (TCS) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C (1) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. , THEREFORE, DECLARED THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND RAISED THE DEMAND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C(6A) R. W.S.206C(7) AND ALSO IMPOSED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 206CA OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY, SO LEVIED B Y THE A.O. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE WERE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONVERSANT W ITH THE VERY TECHNICAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THAT, THOUGH, THEY WERE AWARE OF THE PROVISION OF THE TAX TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE(TDS) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT, HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT CONVERSANT ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 206C OF THE ACT REGARDING THE TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE. T HAT WHEN THE 4 DEPARTMENT INITIATED ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BO ARD, THE ASSESSEE BOARD DULY COLLECTED THE TCS AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES AND DEPOSITED TH E SAME WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THA T THE DELAY IN COLLECTING THE TCS AND DEPOSITING THEREOF WITH T HE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE IGNOR ANCE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOARD ABOUT THE HIGHLY TECHNICAL P ROVISIONS IN THIS RESPECT. HOWEVER, STATUTORY PROVISIONS HAVE BE EN COMPLIED WITH AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED/CONFIRMED U/S 271CA OF THE ACT BE DELETED. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF INTENTIONAL NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED BONAFIDE REASON, FO R WHICH IT HAD FAILED TO COLLECT THE TAX AT SOURCE (TCS) FOR T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, LATER ON, WHEN THEY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS ON THEIR PART, THEY IMMEDIATELY COLLECTED THE TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE CO NCERNED PARTIES AND DEPOSITED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND COMPL IED WITH THE PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, IN THE PROCESS THERE WAS A DELAY AS 5 AFOREMENTIONED. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT DEEM IT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271CA OF THE ACT. THE SAME IS O RDERED TO BE DELETED. THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ' # $ %! (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER )' /DATED: 30 TH APRIL, 2019 * ! * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR