Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (10) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of compensation was made by the Hon'ble Court and no PAN numbers were available with the office. It is also submitted that its office has filed all the TDS returns in form No. 24Q for the Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of the financial years 2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The delay has been attributed on the part of the land owners due to the fact that land owners have not submitted their PAN numbers required for the purpose. However, the land owners had been asked to submit their PAN numbers vide this office letters dated 22.11.2007, 9.1.2008, 3.3.2009 and Public Notice has also been given in Daily Ajit Newspaper on 17.8.2010. As the assessee categorically stated before the lower authorities that due to non availability of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, 1961 whereas the Person responsible had not taken adequate steps under Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 read with section 203(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to ascertain the PAN Number from the payees and issuing the requisite certificate in the prescribed period, resulting in inordinate delay? 3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the Income Tax Officer (TDS-1), Chandigarh vide letter dated 13.8.2010 informed the respondent about the default committed under Section 203 of the Act for non-issuance and late issuance of Form 16A to the deductees. In some cases, Form 16A have been issued late and in some cases the same are yet to be issued. A notice dated 16.8.2010 was issued t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal vide order dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalty. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue made three fold submissions. Firstly, that the findings had been recorded by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the respondent had not issued the tax deducted at source certificate within time. According to the learned counsel once that was so, the respondent was liable for penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Next, there was no reasonable cause as available under Section 273B of the Act had been pleaded by the respondent and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in deleting the penalty. Lastly, relying upon the judgment of Patna High Court i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing Officer has levied the impugned penalty for the violation of the provisions of Rule 31 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 read with section 200(3) (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to issue TDS certificates within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) read with Rule 31 of the I.T. Rule, 1962. The explanation of the assessee for non-issuing the certificates within time prescribed was that the interest component in the compensation paid to the District Court for disbursement to the land owners/right holders is taxable as per Income Tax Act, 1961 and tax @ 11.2% have been deducted and deposited in the Government Account. The assessee further explained before the authorities below that it was difficult to file return as the payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. Thus, the assessee has fulfilled its responsibility for deduction of tax and depositing of tax. It is also apparent from the records that the assessee has made a maximum efforts to obtain the PAN numbers of deductees. In our view, delay in furnishing the Certificates has not caused any loss to the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 26 has inter alia held as under:- An order imposing penalty for failure to carryout a statutory obligation is the result of a quasicriminal 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 dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates