TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is available with the assessee and given effect to, the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 272B of the Act – the claim of the assessee needs verification at the level of the AO – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.848/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2014 - SHRI T.R.SOOD AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rohit Jain For the Respondent : Shri J S Nagar, DR ORDER Per: Susham Chowla: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 25.06.2013 against the penalty levied under section 272B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that the assessee in the e-TDS quarterly statement of deduction of tax in Form No.24Q relating to financial year 2009-10 filed on 17.5.2010 had defaulted in quoting PAN numbers of 45 deductees. The PAN numbers of 45 deductees quoted by the assessee were found to be invalid and no correction statement was filed by the assessee in this regard. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to be liable to penalty under section 272B of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/-. The explanation of the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) was that out of 45 deductees, no tax was deducted in respect of 34 deductees as the amount was below the maximum amount chargeable to tax and hence there was no default on the part of the assessee on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment filed on 3.5.2012 placed at pages 1 and 2 of the Paper Book. It was further pointed out that in respect of one of the deductees the total payment was Rs.14048.63 and though tax was deducted at source at Rs.410/- and was deposited in the account of the treasury, but the said person had left the job and there was in fact no requirement to deduct tax at source out of the amount paid to the said person. The list of the employees alongwith PAN numbers and the payments made to the respective deductees is placed at pages 7 and 7-A to the Paper Book. The said details were part of the reply dated 11.5.2012 of penalty notice issued under section 272B of the Act by the ACIT. 6. The learned D.R. for the Revenue pointed out that there is no reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act for the default in quoting of PAN numbers of the deductees in the e-TDS quarterly statement filed in Form No.26Q by the assessee. The assessee in the said Form No.26Q relating to financial year 2007-08 had wrongly quoted the PAN numbers in respect of 53 deductees. The assessee had not filed the correction statement before the Assessing Officer or before passing of the order of the CIT (Appeals) also. In view thereof though the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.5,30,000/-the same was restricted to Rs.10,000/- by the CIT (Appeals). The provisions of section 272B(1) of the Act provide that If a person failed to comply with the provision of section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbala Distt. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. in ITA No.941/Chd/2011, is attached, under which the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272B of the Act has been upheld and it has been further held that there is no provision in section 272B for levy of penalty @ Rs. 10,000/- per default. 10. However, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in The Corporation Bank Vs. ITO in IT A Nos.185 to 187/Chd/2013 relating to assessment year 2009-10 wherein vide order dated 16.4.2013, the Tribunal had deleted the penalty levied under section 272B of the Act at Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal (in the different combination) vide order dated 16.4.2013 had deleted the said penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had filed correction statement, copies of which have been filed before us and were also filed before the authorities below. In respect of one deductee, though tax was deducted at source but there was no requirement to deduct tax at source as the total amount paid to the said deductee was below the taxable limit and the PAN Number of such employee was not available with the assessee as he had left the service and the same could not be filed. We find merit in the plea of the assessee that there was reasonable cause justifying non levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act. In respect of 34 deductees, there is no default on the part of the assessee as the payments to made were below the limits on which no tax had to be deducted. So there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
