Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Lucknow V. Project Activity Team, Lucknow

ITA 309/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 30923714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM LAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 194C; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.309/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 10 JCIT (TDS), LUCKNOW VS. PROJECT ACTIVITY TEAM UP WATER SECTOR REST 1, HG PROJECT, PAKRI KA PUL, VIP ROAD, ALAMBAGH, LUCKNOW 226005. PAN:AAALP0069Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHYAM LAL, C. A. REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/10/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT (A) III, LUCKNOW DATED 20.12.2013 FOR A.Y. 2009 10. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS FOUR GROUNDS B UT THE GRIEVANCE IS ONLY ONE THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELE TING THE PENALTY OF RS. 563,670/- IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 3. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY WAS DELETED BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE F OR ASSESSEES FAILURE AND HENCE, SECTION 273B IS APPLICABLE. WE FIND THAT SEC TION 271C IS ALSO COVERED 2 BY SECTION 273B. AS PER SECTION 273B, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IF THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE. REGA RDING THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE OR NOT, WE FIND THAT THE ONE SHORT DEDUCTION OF RS. 27,428/- WAS EXPLAINED TO BE IN RE SPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. THE SECOND SHORT DEDUCTION OF RS. 529, 219/- WAS EXPLAINED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194C OR 1 94J. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT LEARNED CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 273B IS APPLICABLE. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE O RDER OF CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:29/10/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR