Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 1177 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) - delay in submission of e-TDS return - Delay in furnishing of the quarterly statements levied penalty as the delay was for 2583 days in respect of Form No.24Q and 1889 days in respect of Form, No.26Q - reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B - The finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is that the assessee was prevented from filing the quarterly statements within prescribed time because of the lack of knowledge of the requirement of law on the part of the Directors of the assessee-company and its employees HELD THAT:- We find that the provisions of furnishing of the quarterly statements were introduced under sub- section (3) of section 200 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1- 4-2005. We find that Revenue could not bring any material before us to controvert the above finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and to show that the assessee was earlier aware of this requirement of law. Further, on the facts of the case that the assessee has paid the tax within the prescribed time, itself shows that ordinarily there would not be any benefit to the assessee for which it would deliberately delay the submission of the quarterly statements. Contention of the Revenue that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse is found to be unacceptable in view of the decision of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd[1978 (12) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that there is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law and it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so. It was also stated that “it is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law”. No error in the findings of CIT(A ) that the breach of provisions by the assessee by filing the quarterly statements with certain delay was a technical or venial breach of law only. Keeping in view the decision of Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. [1999 (12) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we do not find any good reason to interfere with - Decided in favour of assessee.
|