2013 (8) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 3,10,200/- u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act for late filing of quarterly TDS return @ Rs. 100 per day of delay.      (ii) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as:      (a) It artificially and frivolously distinguishes the said decision of Hon'ble the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. (244 ITR 417);      (b) It erred in considering irrelevant and extraneous materials and illogical and illegal arguments;      (c) It reverses the conclusions o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 100/- per day of delay and thereby imposed penalty of Rs. 3.10 lacs, as mentioned above. 4. Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), certain documents in the nature of details of the parties and agencies, to whom the payments were made along with details where PAN numbers were available or not; were produced. On the basis of such documents, the assessee raised the ground that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the quarterly statements in time. Such reason was that as per the departmental instructions, the assessee had to submit details with at least 80% of the PAN details. The assessee was operating in transport industry where most of the truck drivers and owners were not edu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The assessee is, therefore, before us in the present appeal. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. Hemani for the assessee vehemently contended that the Tribunal completely ignored the evidence produced by the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee had, on the basis of such documents, shown reasonable cause for not having been able to file the return within the time. CIT(A) having accepted such explanation, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with same without even looking into the material on record. He contended that the Tribunal had not even called for the documents on record before CIT(A) before coming into abovenoted conclusions. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue opposed the appeal contending that the Tribunal has comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X