Income Tax

Penalty for failure to deduct tax quashed as NOIDA is exempt from TDS payments- Allahabad HC

Penalty for failure to deduct tax quashed as NOIDA is exempt from TDS. Assessee was under bonafide belief that tax was not liable to be deducted – Allahabad High Court

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2001 (2017) (07) HC

The Question of Law for determination:
Whether the tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the CIT (Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) upon the assessee for the failure to deduct tax at source. 

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs. G.M. (Telecom) BSNL Income Tax
Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 121 TTJ (Del) 352
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and another Vs. Canara Bank

Brief Facts of the Case:
The respondent assessee was a Public Sector Bank. It was having fixed deposits of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). However, the bank did not make deduction of tax at source (TDS) on the interest earned on those fixed deposits.

Consequently, a penalty was imposed on the bank for failure to deduct tax at source under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The defence of the respondent assessee was that NOIDA is an Authority under the State Act and is exempt from deduction of tax at source under Section 194-A(1) of the Act. 

Observations made by the High Court:

NOIDA is exempt from payment of tax at source.

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court observed that a Division Bench of the Court in the case of Canara Bankhad held that NOIDA is a corporation established by the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 therefore is exempt from payment of tax at source.

In view of the above decision, the Court opined that the bank was not supposed to deduct any tax at source on the deposits made by the NOIDA and when no such tax was deductable at source, the question of its payment and imposition of penalty did not arise. 

Further, it was observed that as per section 273 B of the Act provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for the failure referred to in Section 271 C of the Act if it is proved that there was reasonable cause for the failure.Therefore, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for not deducting the tax at source, he is not liable for penalty under Section 271 C of the Act. 

Thus, in view of the dispute as to whether NOIDA is a Corporation exempt from liability of deduction of tax at source there was a reasonable cause for the bank not to deduct the tax at source. 

It was noted that in a case where assessee was under a bonafide belief that tax was not liable to be deducted on commission/trade discount the Division Bench of the Court held that it was a reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax. This exactly was the position in the case at hand. 

Accordingly, even in the light of the provisions of Section 273 B of the Act no penalty could have been imposed upon the respondent assessee under Section 271C of the Act. 

Held:
It was held that penalty was not justified as the assessee not only had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source but also NOIDA was exempt for payment of tax at source. The appeal was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees

ITAT allowed increased exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees in view of CBDT retrospective notification. In…

19 hours ago
  • Income Tax

PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO

PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases irrespective of the fact that the relevant assessment was completed physical…

1 day ago
  • Insurance

Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence

Appellate court interfering with Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal findings on assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity must undertake…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken

When period of delay is not very huge and involve huge monetary liability on the assessee, a lenient approach should…

2 days ago
  • SEBI

EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC

Ratification by EoGM of the company can not give legality of the diversion of the fund raised by preferential issue.…

3 days ago
  • Excise/Custom

Return of export cargo from Hormuz Strait where vessel do not lands at original port

CBIC prescribes procedures for return of export cargo from international waters due to closure of the Strait of Hormuz where…

3 days ago