TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uctees. Even otherwise also, no penalty is leviable when there is a technical or venial breach of the Act - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 448/Chd/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - SHRI H.L. KARWA, AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, JJ. Appellant By : Shri Harmod Khanduja Respondent By : Ms. Harkamal Sohi ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, VP This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Rohtak dated 09.02.2012 in confirming the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed u/s 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for financial year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee (Tax Deductor) is the holder of Tax Deduction and Collection Account No. RTKA03295F. The e.TDS quarter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order of the ld. CIT(A). This Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 19.9.2011 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue observing as under:- " 5. We have heard Shri N.K. Saini, DR for the revenue at length and have also perused the materials available on record. In this case the 3 assessee quoted wrong PANs for 77 deductees which was corrected on being pointed out by the ITO(TDS). Section 273B of the Act provides that no penalty is imposable for a failure u/s 272B, if it is proved by the deductees that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In this case the assessee has explained that failure to quote right PAN was occurred as the concerned depositor has himself mis-quoted PAN. It is also the case of the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is a technical or venial breach of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd V. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (S.C) has held as under:- "An or der imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was a guilty or conduct contumacious or dis hones t, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the ITO (TDS), Panchkula and confirmed by the CIT(A). 8. Before parting with this case, we may observe here that Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction while levying the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in this case. Section 272B of the Act reads as under:- 5 "Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 139A. 272B. (1) If a person fails to comply with the provisions of section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees." 9. From the above section, it is clear that if a person fails to comply with the provisions of section 139A, the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to levy a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, not more than th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
