Sri Avantika Contractors(I) Limited, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 61/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6277 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 192; 194J

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.61/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AAJCS 5046C Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1), Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Sunil Gowtham (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 08.12.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2009-10 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad’s order dt.27.10.2017 passed in case No.0078/CIT(A)/HYD/2010-11 in proceedings under Section 271C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA No.61/Hyd/2018 2. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities’ have erred in law and on facts in imposing 271C penalty of Rs.9,99,606; we note that the same pertains to its failure in not deducting/remitting TDS involving rent, contract, professional and salary payments u/s. 194I, 194C, 194J and 192 of the Act; respectively. There is hardly any dispute that it had failed to deduct TDS on the corresponding payment. 3. Learned authorized representative vehemently submitted during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking the impugned penalty. Mr. Srinivas reiterated the assessee's stand in light of its detailed paper book running into 24 pages that foregoing failure was on account of the fact that the corresponding payments had been made at construction sites at local level wherein the work force did not have adequate knowledge of the compliance mechanism under chapter XVII of the Act. And that there was change in assessee's audit / accounts staff as well which forms a very valid reason of the impugned non-compliance. All these arguments fail to evoke our concurrence as it was the assessee's duty to deduct TDS as per the specified provisions and the foregoing twin 3 ITA No.61/Hyd/2018 alleged reasons hardly deserve to be accepted since going against the mandatory TDS compliance mechanism in the Act. We thus hold in these factual circumstances that both the lower authorities have rightly imposed the impugned penalty u/s.271C of the Act. The same stands affirmed. 4. This assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Dec., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 16.12.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited, 610B, Niligiri Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 038 2. DCIT, Circle 15(1), Hyderabad. 3. C I T (TDS), Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-8, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.