M/s. Siomond Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6545/DEL/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 654520114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAICS0568A
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 6545/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Siomond Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent JCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2020
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2020
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 22-12-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.-6545/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 M/S. SIOMOND PHARMACEUTICALS (P.) LTD. 880/804B MAIN MARKET 3 RD FLOOR RANI BAGH NEW DELHI PAN : AAICS0568A VS . J CIT RANGE-77 NEW DELHI APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SARAS KUMAR SR. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA A.M.: (A) THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 08.09.20 16 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- 41 NEW DELHI [IN SHORT LD. CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. (B) ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATED TO PENAL TY IMPOSED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2015 BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 96 986/- UNDER SECTION 276C OF I.T.ACT FOR FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX A T SOURCE AT 2 ITA NO. 6545/DEL/2016 (M/S. SIOMOND PHARMACEUTICALS (P.) LTD .) THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF EMI TO NBFC. VIDE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 08/09/2016 LD. CIT(A) CONFIR MED THE AFORESAID PENALTY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE APPELLANT AND I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER U/S 271C OF THE ACT DATED 17.07.2015 PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX. 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IT WAS UNDE R BONAFIDE RELIEF THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTABLC OUT OF PAYMENT OF INTERE ST TO NON- BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND HENCE IT DID NOT DEDUCT TAX ON SUCH PAYMENTS. IT HA S BEEN CLAIMED THAT THIS BELIEF WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE OF THE DELA Y AND HENCE PENALTY U/S 271C SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. 4.3 THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IN S UPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT PENALTY NEED NOT BE IMPOSED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NEED TO BE TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION AND ONLY THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE GOOD A ND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPO SITION OF PENALTY. 4.4 WHILE 1 AM IN FULL AGREEMENT THAT PENALTY U/S 271C MAY NOT BE IMPOSED WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN MY CO NSIDERED VIEW THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE O N THE PAYMENTS OF INTEREST TO NBFCS. THE DECISION OF IT A T CHANDIGARH RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT RELATES TO AN INDIVIDU AL WHILE THE APPELLANT IS A COMPANY. IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN EXCUSE FOR REASONABLE CAUSE. 4.5 THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S SAHARA INDIA FINAN CIAL CORPORATION I ID RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT HAS D IFFERENT FACTS. I HE HONBLE FI AT DELHI IN PARA 36 OF THE ORDER HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SA HARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. HAD TRANSFERRED AMOUNT TO INTEREST PAYA BLE ACCOUNT THOUGH THERE WAS NO LIABILITV TO TRANSFER THIS AMOU NT TO SUCH ACCOUNT. NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT THE TIME OF SUCH TRANSFER W AS HELD BY ITAT TO BE A MINOR DEFAULT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED A REASO NABLE CAUSE. ON THE OTHER HAND IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT TAX WAS D EDUCTIBLE ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID/PAYABLE TO NBFCS. 4.6 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF M/S. CADBURY INDIA LTD. THE JCIT IN HIS PENALTY ORDER HA S CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN CADBURY IND IA LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE DEFAULT HAD BEEN COMM ITTED ON THE BASIS OF MISCONCEIVED PROFESSIONAL ADVICE GIVEN BY CAS WHICH WAS HELD BY THE COURT AS REASONABLE CAUSE. 3 ITA NO. 6545/DEL/2016 (M/S. SIOMOND PHARMACEUTICALS (P.) LTD .) 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HERE EXISTS NO REASONABLE CAUSE. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE JCIT IS CO NFIRMED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION AT THE TIM E OF GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER ACCORDINGLY. (C) AT THE TIME OF HEARING REVENUE WAS REPRESENT ED BY SHRI SARAS KUMAR LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. SR. DR FOR SHORT). HOWEVER NONE WAS PRESENT FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEES SIDE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US WE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR; WHO RELIED UPON AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 08/09/2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS ON R ECORD; WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED SPEAKING ORDER RELEVANT PORTIONS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN E ARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR HER DECISION ON MERITS IN THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 08/09/2016. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL (ITAT FOR SHORT) NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT FO R OUR CONSIDERATION TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERE NT FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED AP PELLATE ORDER DATED 08/09/2016. AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. D R AND AFTER PERUSAL OF MATERIALS ON RECORD AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE W ITH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 08/09/2016 OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. 4 ITA NO. 6545/DEL/2016 (M/S. SIOMOND PHARMACEUTICALS (P.) LTD .) (D) BEFORE WE PART; WE EXPLICITLY CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF INC OME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS IN ITA T THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW HA VING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. (E) IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2020. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28/02/2020 *BR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 25.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5 ITA NO. 6545/DEL/2016 (M/S. SIOMOND PHARMACEUTICALS (P.) LTD .) DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER