SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 11810

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
DCIT(TDS)-1(3) MUMBAI MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
LOGICASH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED CBD BELAPUR – Respondent
ITA 1066/MUM/2026[2016]



##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.992/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2017-18)

ITA No.993/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2018-19)

ITA No.1066/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2016-17)

DCIT(TDS)-1(3), Mumbai vs Logicash Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Room No. 420, Old MTNL 6th floor, Sharda Terrace, Sector 11,

Exchange Cumballa Hill, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 19,-

Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 400614

PAN: AABCL6882F

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : None

Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)

Date of hearing : 20/04/2026

Date of pronouncement : 23/04/2026

O R D E R

Per Bench :

A bunch of appeal of the same assessee were filed by the revenue against

the order of the NFAC [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-

17 to 2018-19, date of orders 11.11.2025. The impugned order emanated from

the orders of the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range 1(3), Mumbai

##PAGE2##

2

ITA No.992,993 and 1066/Mum/2026

Logicash Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

(for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 271C of the Act date of

orders 23.01.2020.

2. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of

assessee to represent the case. There is no application for seeking adjournment

either. On perusal of record, we find that the hearing was scheduled on

16/04/2026. But the appeals were adjourned and the date of hearing is fixed on

20/04/2026. In view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we

proceed to dispose the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR

and on the basis of material available on the record.

3. All three appeals pertains to the same assessee and arises out from a

common fact. All the appeals have taken together, heard together and for

convenience disposed of by a common order. ITA 992/Mum/2026 is taken as lead

case and the decision rendered therein shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the

other appeals.

4. The revenue has taken the following grounds:

“I hereby direct the DCIT (TDS) Cir 1(3) Mumbai, to file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal,

Mumbai against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi vide DIN & Order No.

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082460425(1) D1 11.11.2025, In the above case for AY 2017-18 on

the following ground(s):-

(iv) "Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right

in deleting the penalty u/s.271C of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source even

though the assessee deductor has failed to deduct the tax at source".

(v) "Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right

in deleting the penalty u/s.271C of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating that 2nd proviso to

section 201(1) provides exemption to the assessee deductor only from levy of penalty u/s.221 on

satisfaction of Assessing officer of good and sufficient reasons and it does not provide any

exemption from levy of penalty u/s.271C of the IT Act".

##PAGE3##

3

ITA No.992,993 and 1066/Mum/2026

Logicash Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

(vi) "Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right

in deleting the penalty u/s.271C of the I.T. Act, 1961 In contradiction to the decision of Hon'ble

SC in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd V Commissioner of Income-tax (2007)

293 ITR 226 (SC) wherein it has been clearly held in para 10 that the payment of taxes by

deductee will not alter the liability for penalty u/s.271C".

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a deductor company and

is a service provider of cash management services for various financial institutions

on verification of compliance of the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act a

survey action u/sec. 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted in the case of assessee.

During the course of survey action it was found that the deductor company has

not deducted tax

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top