The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Atul S Mehta

C/TAXAP/453/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 453 of 2018 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3VersusATUL S MEHTA ==========================================================Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 07/05/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.11.2017 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the penalty of Rs.74,18,771/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to the default of non-deduction of TDS? 2.Issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer having imposed such penalty, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the same. The Tribunal in the process, observed as under: C/TAXAP/453/2018 ORDER “5.During the course of appellate proceedings before us, ld. departmental representative has stated in respect of quantum addition nobody has appeared before the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, therefore, the quantum addition order in the case of the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide ITA No.2806/Ahd/2010 dated 22[nd] November, 2013. After hearing the ld. departmental representative and perusal of the material on record, we observed that that ld. CIT(A) has allowed part relief to the assessee on the penalty levied by the assessing officer pertaining to the default of non-reduction of TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) held that use of deeming fiction of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, such expenditure were disallowed. He has, however, stated these expenditure are allowable in any subsequent year on the basis of TDS payment. Therefore, he concluded that part of the penalty levied on this issue is not based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. After considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A), we are not inclined to interfere in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 3.No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) ANKIT SHAH (B.N. KARIA, J)