9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 'no notice' issued to the 'appellant' for default under section 272A(2)(k) of the 'Act' and the impugned order could not be held to be valid on the strength of notice(s) specifically issued for proceedings under section 272A(2)(c) of the 'Act'. 2. BECAUSE, learned CIT (Appeals) has while upholding validity of impugned proceedings on the strength of notice issued under section 272A(2)(c) of the 'Act', grossly erred in holding that it was a typographical error, whereas such a plea has never raised, pleaded or substantiated by the 'AO'. 3. BECAUSE, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not cancelling the impugned order on the ground that the 'AO' should have issued separate notices and separate notice of demand in respect of alleged default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on 07/08/2007 before levying of a penalty in which reference of the notice dated 18.04.2007 issued by Addl. CIT(OSD), Mathura has also been given. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware as to for what default, the notice was issued to him and there was no confusion because of wrong mentioning of the section. Considering the above mistake in the notice in which instead of clause (k), clause (c) was printed, it can be very well said that it was a typographical error because in the body of the notice, default committed by the appellant was clearly mentioned as being not filing of quarterly return for all the four quarters as mentioned in the impugned notice. In my considered opinion, such mistake are very much curable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not the case in all the case laws referred by the Ld. AR. Therefore, objection taken by the Ld. AR on technical ground arguing that the impugned order was bad in law and hence, to be cancelled, is not found to be tenable and therefore, the technical objection taken by the Ld. AR is dismissed." 3. On merit, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty for late filing of quarterly return Form 24Q for second quarter which was delayed by 77 days, 24Q for third quarter was delayed by 16 days and Form 24Q for fourth quarter was not filed. The relevant finding of CIT(A) is reproduced as below :- (paragraph no.6) "6. With regard to levy of penalty for late filing of form no.24Q, the present AO has given revised computation of the amount of penalty u/s 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or fourth quarter was in fact filed or not and if not why? As far as quantum of penalty is concerned, for delay in filing of form no.24Q/not filing of form 24Q is concerned, there is no dispute and the amount has been found as correctly determined by the AO at Rs. 27,300/-. Now the question is that whether for such default, there was any reasonable cause. In this regard, I find that in the submission of the Ld. AR itself, it has been admitted that there is no explanation of not filing of form no. 24Q for the fourth quarter and hence, I find that the appellant is liable for penalty of Rs. 18,000/- for not filing of quarterly return of fourth quarter. As far as the default relating to late filing of form no.24Q for second quarter and third qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial or quasi-judicial power to inflict a penalty on the head of the public office. Here, in the present case, I find that there is negligence on the part of the Manager of Union Bank of India to ensure after necessary checking whether the relevant law with regard to filing of quarterly return for fourth quarter are being complied with or not, which resulted into not filing of quarterly return and therefore, in my considered opinion, the appellant is liable for minimum penalty of Rs. 27,300/- computed as per the provisions of the relevant section. Therefore, I confirm levying of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) for default of the appellant in late filing of quarterly return/not filing of quarterly return." 4. We have heard the ld. Representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed whether under the facts and circumstances there was reasonable cause or not. In this regard, the contention of the assessee that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing of returns or for not filing of the returns as new system of e-filing of quarterly returns have been introduced. The penalty in the case under consideration has been levied for late filing of Form No.24Q in respect of second and third quarter ended 15.10.2005 & 15.01.2006 and non-filing of fourth quarter ended 11.06.2006. The requirement of filing quarterly 24Q has been inserted by the Income Tax (10th Amendment) Rules, 2005 w.e.f. 30.03.2005. The I.T.A.T., Mumbai Bench in the case of Royal Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 37 SOT 139 (Mum.) held that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
