AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Sanjieva Shankhdhar, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Waseequddin, the learned counsel for the respondent. This is a bunch of fourteen appeals preferred u/s 260A of the income tax Act with respect to different assessment years, namely, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
The following substantial questions of law have been raised in these appeals:-
(i) Whether the Hon''ble ITAT was justified in entertaining the plea of the erring assessee that Form No. 26A has to be submitted only after TDS was made according to section 194A.
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified that one default committed by the assessee could be a reasonable cause for the commission of another default.
(iii) Whether in a case where the assessee has not deducted the tax at source in time and Form No. 26A was submitted after the TDS has been made, whether the appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no delay in filing the Form No. 26A as per provisions of section 206 of the income tax Act.
Shri Sanjieva Shankhdhar, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that non-deduction of tax at source, for which penalty has been imposed u/s 271C of the income tax Act and against which an appeal is already pending, would not absolve the assessee of the penalty imposable under sections 272A(2)(g) and 272A(2)(c). It is further submitted by him that the violation of provisions of sections 203 and 206 itself makes out a case for levying the penalty, irrespective of the fact that the penalty has been imposed upon the assessee u/s 271C of the Act.
It is undisputed that the penalty has been imposed upon the assessee u/s 271C of the income tax Act and the matter is at present pending in appeal.
However, Shri Waseequddin, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the matter stands concluded by the judgments of this Court rendered in income tax Appeal No. 163 of 2005 1. CIT v. Sahara Airlines Ltd. decided on 9-12-2005 and income tax Appeal No. 49 of 2005 2, CIT v. Sri Ram Memorial Education Promotion Society decided on 26-5-2005 and there is no substantial question of law now to be decided and these appeals are liable to be dismissed. The copy of the judgment and orders of the said two appeals have been placed before us. In Sri Ram Memorial Education Promotion Society''s case (supra) in which one of us (R.P. Yadav, J.) was a member, the view taken by this Court was that once a person prescribed or concerned or the assessee has been subjected to a penalty u/s 271C, for not deducting the tax at source, there would not arise any occasion for levying a penalty under sections 272A(c) and 272A(g) for non-compliance of the provisions of sections 203 and 206. In other words, in case the tax has not been deducted at source, the question of issuing the certificate of tax u/s 203 or that of filing of return u/s 206 would not arise at all. That being so, the question of imposing penalty for violation of the aforesaid provisions, would also not arise.
In Sahara Airlines Ltd.''s case (supra), the aforesaid view was reiterated with the following addition that if the tax has not been deducted at source, there arises no question for imposing any penalty u/s 272A(g) of the Act for not furnishing the certificates for tax to the person from whose account the tax has been deducted.
The learned counsel for appellants has stated that on inquiry, he has come to know that the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in the said income tax appeals have not been challenged before the Hon''ble Apex Court by filing SLP And, therefore, they have attained finality.
In view of the aforesaid two judgments, which have not been challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants stand concluded and we find no illegality or incorrectness in the order passed by the Tribunal. Since the matter being squarely covered by the said two judgments, no interference by this Court is required. The appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.