Uniform allowance isn’t exempt if no dress code

Uniform allowance paid to employees isn’t exempt if no dress code has been specified for employees

IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D'

Facets Polishing Works (P.) Ltd.

v.

Income-tax Officer, TDS -1, Surat

G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NOS. 674 TO 676 AND 856 & 857 (AHD.) OF 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10]

JUNE  25, 2015 

No exemption under section 10(14) shall be granted in respect of uniform allowance paid to employees if there is no dress code and the employees are free to wear any dress. ITAT has directed assessee-employer to include such allowance in salary of the employees for the purpose of deduction of tax under section 192

Additions or improvements eligible for sec. 54F relief

Cost of additions or improvements on habitable house is also eligible for sec. 54F relief

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Mrs. Rahana Siraj

v.

Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bangalore

N.KUMAR AND B. VEERAPPA, JJ.

IT APPEAL NO. 232 OF 2013

JANUARY  5, 2015 

Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Cost of additions/improvements) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether if assessee purchases a new asset, which is habitable but requires additions, alternations, modifications and improvements, money spent on those aspects would be eligible for benefit of deduction under section 54F - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee]

Sale of carbon credit is capital receipt

[2015] 58 taxmann.com 223 (Chennai - Trib.)

IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'B'

Arun Textiles (P.) Ltd.

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO.268 (MDS.) OF 2014
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10]

SEPTEMBER  12, 2014 

Section 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income - Chargeable as (Carbon credit) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Whether amount received by assessee on account of clean development mechanism (Carbon credits) was capital in nature - Held, yes [Para 8][In favour of assessee]

Profits ratio : In case of rejection of books of account

In case of rejection of books of account profit ratio applied for earlier year should be considered 

Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs DCIT (ITAT Lucknow), ITA No.750/LKW/2014, Date of decision – 19^th June 2015

Brief Facts of the Case

During assessment the the books of accounts were not presented to the AO and therefore the AO rejected books of accounts u/s 145(3) of I.T. Act. And proceeded to apply the net profit rate at 8% which was excessive and arbitrary and does not have linkage with the net profit being shown in earlier years when the books of accounts were not rejected.

Moreover in the appellant’s own case the A.O. has applied N.P. rate 5% which has been reduced by the CIT (Appeals) 4% in prior year’s assessment, on contract receipts. The A.O. did not advance any reason for adopting the rate of 8% for estimation of profit on contract receipts. No comparison has been made which similar cases of other assessee, in application of N.P. rate @ 8%. Even the A.O. has overlooked the immediately preceding assessment year’s history of estimation of income.

Question of Law

Whether profit % can be applied on estimate basis if books of accounts are rejected, without reference to earlier year’s profit % where books were accounts were not rejected or whether the Assessing Officer is justified in Assessing the profit at a rate higher than earlier year in which profit was assessed by Assessing officer without specifying the reason for the same?

Contention of the Assesse

The assessee submitted that in earlier year, the profit of the assessee was in the range of 2.06% to 3.02% and in assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer adopted net profit rate of 5%, which was reduced by learned CIT(A) to 4% and therefore, in the present year also the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed.

The comparative chart of contract receipts, expenditure, net profit and percentage of net profit of three years is as under:-

Assessment Year	Gross Receipts	Expenditure on purchase of material and labour	Percentage of expenditure on material and labour	Net Profit	Percentage
2008-2009	22,858,775	21,437,580	94	471,215	2.06
2009-2010	37,753,502	34,015,440	90	1,142,592	3.02
2010-2011	43,316,484	37,548,425	89	1,483,584	3.50

The above chart transpires that the appellant has shown the net profit slightly higher than assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(Appeals)-II, Lucknow in appeal No.25/ 113/DCIT / Gonda/Lko11-12 has confirmed the application of N.P. @4% on the gross contract receipts.

Case Law relied on:

• Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Inani Marbles P. Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125 (Raj).
  

Contention of the Revenue

The estimation of net profit cannot be made based on the net profit in the immediately proceedings years because facts of the case in the year under consideration are totally different from facts in immediately proceedings assessment years.

The business results disclosed by the assessee in the year under appeal cannot be considered for deciding the estimation of net profit as after rejection of books of a/c, any business results prepared on the basis of these books have no legs to stand.

Held by the ITAT

In assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer estimated the income at 5%, which was reduced by learned CIT(A) to 4% and nothing has been brought on record showing that this finding of CIT(A) is challenged by Revenue before the Tribunal and the same was disturbed by the Tribunal. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee, it was held that Tribunal is justified in applying profit rate of prior year. In the present case, the CIT(A) has adopted the same rate as has been adopted by CIT(A) in assessment year 2009-10 and nothing has been brought on record to show that the finding of CIT(A) in assessment year 2009-10 has been challenged by the Revenue and the same was disturbed by any higher authority. Considering these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the same.

Reassessment when the Notice Not Served

ITAT quashed reassessment as revenue failed to establish service of reassessment notice to assessee

IN THE ITAT GUWAHATI BENCH

Smt. Chapala Kalita

v.

Income-tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Dispur*

H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT
AND RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT APPEAL NOS. 340 TO 344 (GAU.) OF 2013
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92,1993-94,1994-95,1998-99 & 1999-2000]

JANUARY  29, 2015 

Section 148, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for (Service of notice) - Assessment years 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 - Whether service of notice under section 148, for purpose of initiating proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement but it is a condition precedent to initiation of proceedings for reassessment and, thus, in absence of proof of service of notice, reassessment is not valid - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]

Taxability in case of illegally encroached land

Illegally encroached land is not a capital asset; profit arising on its sale is taxable as income from other source

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'B'

Income-tax Officer, 21(3)(1), Mumbai

v.

Bhagwan T. Fatnani

JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 7811 (MUM.) OF 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09]

APRIL  8, 2015 

Section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 56, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee's books had shown long-term capital gains from unauthorizedly encroached school land for which he had no title/right - Whether 'property of any kind held' as per definition of 'capital asset' in section 2(14) means property legally held by assessee and not property illegally encroached by him - Held, yes - Whether capital gains under section 45 accrues only if there is a sale or any transfer of capital asset - Held, yes - Whether since assessee did not have legal right or title over property in question, there was no capital asset owned by assessee within meaning of section 2(14) and, therefore, there was no question of any sale or transfer of capital asset to claim capital gain - Held, yes - Whether such gain would be assessed as income from other sources - Held, yes [Para 2.12] [In favour of revenue]

SECTION 10(10C) :Voluntary retirement payments

SECTION 10(10C)/INCOME-TAX ACT

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan^*

F.I. REBELLO AND K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ.

IT APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2008

JULY 4, 2008

Section 10(10C), read with section 89(1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Voluntary retirement payments - Whether a scheme framed for voluntary retirement or termination of service must either expressly or impliedly comply with requirements as set out in rule 2BA - Held, yes - Whether merely because scheme for voluntary retirement may not expressly set out that vacant posts will not be filled up, it can result in scheme not being a scheme falling under section 10(10C), read with rule 2BA - Held, no - Whether when Optional Early Retirement Scheme of Reserve Bank of India expressly or impliedly satisfied all requirements of section 10(10C) as well as guidelines framed under rule 2BA for purpose of section 10(10C), amount received by assessee under said scheme of RBI would be eligible for exemption under section 10(10C) - Held, yes

Circulars and Notifications - CBDT Circular, dated 26th September/ October, 2005

when it is held that No capital gain arose on sale of land as it wasn't treated as capital asset for other co-owners of such land

No capital gain arose on sale of land as it wasn't treated as capital asset for other co-owners of such land

IN THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH

Sita Ram Sharma

v.

Income-tax Officer, Ward- 7 (2), Jaipur

R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT APPEAL NOS.722 TO 726 (JP.) OF 2013, 64 TO 68 (JP.) OF 2014
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08]

MAY  1, 2015 

Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Agricultural land) - Assessment year 2007-08 - During relevant year, assessee alongwith his five brothers sold a piece of land - Assessee claimed that said land was situated beyond 8 Km. from local municipal limit and thus it was not a capital asset - Assessing Officer having rejected assessee's explanation, treated land in question as capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) - He thus made addition to assessee's income on account of long term capital gain arising from sale of land - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed assessment order - It was noted that in case of assessee's brother, revenue authorities had not made any addition on account of long term capital gain - Further, in case of one 'K', adjacent land sold by her had not been regarded as capital asset as envisaged under section 2(14) - Whether in aforesaid circumstances, land sold by assessee was to be treated as agricultural land situated beyond 8 Kms. from local municipal limits and, consequently, impugned addition was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 9] [In favour of assessee]

Section 271(1)(c) penalty couldn't be levied for furnishing 'inaccurate' particulars

AO couldn't levy penalty for furnishing 'inaccurate' particulars by invoking Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)

IN THE ITAT INDORE BENCH

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

Nepa Ltd.

P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 683 (IND.) OF 2013
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04]

OCTOBER  13, 2014 

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)) - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessee debited provision for doubtful debts in its audited profit and loss account which was disallowed in assessment - Assessing Officer levied penalty on assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by invoking Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) - Whether since Explanation 1 is applicable in respect of particulars which have been concealed and not for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty could not be sustained - Held, yes [Paras 8 & 9] [In favour of assessee]

Swiss account :No criminal prosecution against assessee

No criminal prosecution against assessee due to having Swiss account if he had furnished its details to revenue

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Shravan Gupta

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

CRL. M.C. NO. 1100 OF 2015
CRL. M.A. NO. 4098 OF 2015

APRIL  6, 2015 

Section 142, read with sections 276, and 279, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Inquiry before assessment (Criminal prosecution) - Assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 - Assessee had a foreign bank account with HSBC, Switzerland - Huge amount was lying in said account was closed - Said account was closed - Notice issued to assessee under section 142(1) to furnish details of his bank accounts, in reply of which assessee submitted same to authorities - Revenue authorities rejected details furnished by assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) issued sanction on account of non-compliance of section 142(1) and, accordingly, launched criminal prosecution under section 279 - Assessee challenged said prosecution filing writ submitting that assessee already furnished relevant document such as bank statement and said facts were conveyed to authorities by sending letters on different dates - Whether on facts, summoning order issued to assessee was to be remanded back for disposal afresh after considering assessee's reply to notice under section 142(1) - Held, yes [Paras 20 & 21] [In favour of assessee]

Deductions couldn't be denied if assessee submitted manual return instead of E filing

Deductions couldn't be denied if assessee submitted manual return, though e-filing was mandatory for him

IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'B'

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

Sucram Pharmaceuticals*

DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NOS. 804 & 808 (MDS.) OF 2014
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12]

AUGUST  18, 2014 

Section 80-IC, read with section 80AC, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States (Filing of return) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of manufacturing of drugs and medicines - During relevant year, assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IC - Assessing Officer held that since assessee had failed to file return of income in electronic mode within due date, assessee was not eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC - Assessee submitted that it had filed return of income manually within due date and since electronic filing of return was made mandatory from assessment year 2010-11 and its accountants were not aware that return had to filed in e-mode, as soon as it came to knowledge of accountants, return was furnished in e-mode - Whether since a manual return was furnished before due date while electronic return after due date, provision of section 80-IC so as to claim deduction under section 80-IC was complied with and assessee was entitled to claim deduction - Held, yes [Para 9] [In favour of assessee/Matter remanded]

43B disallowance even in case of Presumptive Taxation

ITAT makes sec. 43B disallowance even when assessee opts for presumptive taxation scheme

IN THE ITAT PANAJI BENCH

Good Luck Kinetic

v.

Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Margao

GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 26 (PNJ.) OF 2013
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07]

JUNE  15, 2015 

Question : Whether disallowance of Section 43B could be made even when assessee opted for presumptive taxation Scheme?

Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:

(a)		Under the presumptive taxation scheme, income of an assessee is computed at a fixed percentage of turnover and it would be deemed that that all deductions allowable under the head business or profession have already been allowed to assessee. In other words deductions allowable under Sections 28 to 43C are deemed to have been granted to assessee.
(b)		Perusal of provisions of Section 43B shows that said provision is a restriction on allowance of particular expenditure, inter-alia, statutory liability, as it allows deduction of such liability on actual payment basis, i.e., expenditure shall not be allowed to be deducted unless same has been paid before the due date of filing the return.
(c)		Section 44AF starts with the words "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec. 28 to 43C", whereas section 43B starts with the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act".
(d)		The non-obstante clause in Sec. 43B has a far wider amplitude because it uses the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act". Therefore, even assuming that the deduction is permissible or the deduction is deemed to have been allowed under any other provisions of this Act, still the control placed by the provisions of Sec. 43B in respect of the statutory liabilities still holds precedence over such allowance.
(e)		Hence, disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of Sec. 43B in respect of the statutory liabilities, even though the assessee offered his income to tax on presumptive basis.

ITAT can admit additional grounds even if not Raised at earlier stage of proceedings

ITAT isn't barred from handling question of law or fact just because it isn't raised at earlier stage of proceedings

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'I'

Pradeep G. Vora

v.

Income Tax Officer, 16(2)(1)*

RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 2187 (MUM.) OF 2006
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02]

MAY  30, 2014 

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of (Power to admit additional grounds) - Assessment year 2001-02 - Whether Tribunal is not precluded from handling a point, whether of law or fact, which relates to assessee's assessment merely because nobody else had handled it before or because assessee or department had not raised and urged that point at earlier stages of proceedings - Held, yes [Para 3.3] [In favour of assessee]

Section 194 C : Not Applicable in case of Legal Obligation

Sum paid on account of legal obligations instead of contractual agreement isn't subject to sec. 194C TDS

IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH

Executive Officer

v.

Income-tax Officer TDS-II, Jalandhar

PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NOS. 40 TO 43 (ASR.) OF 2015
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11]

JUNE  10, 2015 

Payment made to Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board which arose out of legal obligations rather than any contractual agreements couldn’t be subjected to TDS under section 194C

Tax returns of MPs/MLAs can't be disclosed under RTI

Tax returns of MPs/MLAs can't be disclosed under RTI to compare info disclosed in election affidavit

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Shailesh Gandhi

v.

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

R.M. SAVANT, J.

WRIT PETITION NO. 8753 OF 2013

JUNE  11, 2015 

Income-Tax Returns filed by elected representatives(MPs/MLAs) is exempted from disclosure by "privacy clause" of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005.Copies of the same cannot be furnished for comparing the income disclosed in ITRs with disclosures made in election affidavit filed with Election Commission under Representation of the People Act,1950

Section 172 Taxability is qua a ship and not qua enterprise owning or using it under a charter agreement

No denial of DTAA benefit to owner of ship just because charterer of ship was liable to tax under business agreement

IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A'

H.K. Dave Ltd.

v.

Tax Recovery Officer, Range -1, Bhavnagar*

PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 1049 (AHD.) OF 2006
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02]

MAY  1, 2015 

Section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with article 9 of the DTAA between India and U.K. - Non-resident - Shipping business of (Benefit of article 9 of DTAA) - Assessment year 2001-02 - Whether taxability under section 172 is qua a ship and not qua enterprise owning or using it under a charter agreement - Held, yes - Whether if a person assumes liability under section 172(3), it is in respect of income earned by activities of ship - Held, yes - Whether it is fact of taxability under a statute, rather than contractual liability under a business agreement, which determines eligibility for treaty benefits - Held, yes - Assessee-company was rendering services, to foreign vessels under agency of U.K. company, and Charterer of ship was at Bahamas - Assessee requested Tax Recovery Officer for issuance of income-tax clearance certificate in respect of shipment carrying cement in bulk - Tax Recovery Officer had granted a certificate treating income as exempt under DTAA of Government of India with U.K. - However, subsequently Assessing Officer noticed that tax on freight was payable by charterer in Bahamas with which no DTAA was in existence and thus relief under section 90 already granted was withdrawn and tax liability was computed under section 172(4) - Whether since income was earned by UK based company, and, provisions of article 9(1) of Indo-UK DTAA unambiguously provides that 'income of an enterprise of a contracting State from operation of ships in international traffic shall be taxable only in that State's, assessee could not be held liable for tax - Held, yes [Para 9] [In favour of assessee]

Taxability of Rental Income Received by Real Estate Developer : Business income or income from House Property

 Rental income received from unsold portion of property constructed by assessee a real estate developer, is assessable as income from house property

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Commissioner of Income-tax-12, Mumbai

v.

Sane & Doshi Enterprises*

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

IT APPEAL NOS. 375 OF 2013
& 5313,5592,6230,6232,6234 OF 2010, 1448 OF 2011
1504 OF 2012, 418 AND 675 OF 2013

APRIL  9, 2015 

Section 22, read with section 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from house property - Chargeable as (Business income v. House property income) - Whether rental income received from unsold portion of property constructed by assessee, a real estate developer, is assessable as income from house property and not business - Held, yes - Whether once it is held that income is derived from property, treatment given in books of account as stock-in-trade would not alter character or nature of income - Held, yes [Paras 22 & 25] [In favour of assessee]

Taxability of Salary paid to Non Resident director for services rendered outside india

Salary paid to NR director for services rendered to US based branch of Co. wasn't taxable in India

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'I'

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3) Mumbai

v.

Swift Freight India Ltd

R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 5598 (MUM.) OF 2009
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07]

JANUARY  14, 2015 

Section 9, read with section 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income-Deemed to Accure or Arise in India (Salary) - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether where MD was a non resident and salary was received by him outside India for services rendered outside India, no TDS need to be deducted and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for salary payment - Held, yes [Para 4.5] [In favour of assessee]

Can the interest on House Loan be Set off from House Property upto 150000 and balance from Interest Income

Interest on housing loan disallowed due to maximum limit of Sec. 24 couldn't be set-off against interest income

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'A'

Akansha Ranju Pilani

v.

Income-tax Officer (I.T) Ward 4(1) Mumbai

IT APPEAL NO. 3597 (MUM.) OF 2013
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11]

JUNE  12, 2015 

Housing loan interest in respect of Self Occupied Property in excess of Rs.1,50,000 shall be disallowed u/s 24(b) and shall not be allowed to be deducted from interest income from loan given shown under income from other sources head. It cannot be argued that if own savings had not been given as loan and been invested in house instead, there would have been no income from loan given nor there would have been interest liability on housing loan and thus both should be netted off

TDS return :whether Penalty will be levied if PAN of Deductee not Mentioned ?

Failure to mention PAN of a few deductees in TDS return due to their non-availability won't invite penalty

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC'

Income-tax Officer (TDS), Rohtak

v.

Executive Engineer

R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT APPEAL NOS. 492 TO 495 (DELHI) OF 2014
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11]

JUNE  15, 2015 

No penalty imposable u/s 272B if deductor fails to mention correct PAN of a few deductees in quarterly e-TDS return Form 26Q which in fact were not available with deductor at the material time and deductor had nevertheless deducted TDS and deposited the same with Govt and obtained correct PAN numbers and filed revised statement on receiving show cause notice from the Department. These circumstances come within the scope of "reasonable cause" for non-compliance u/s 273B. Also, absent contumacious conduct, deductor entitled to relief in terms of Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26