TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong mentioning of the section - when the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), the AO did not cared to appear before the CIT(A) to bring to his notice that he has mentioned the section wrongly - the conduct of the AO clearly suggest that he intended to proceed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act and completed his proceedings under that very section itself - CIT(A) has very correctly mentioned that no penalty can be levied under this section 272A(2)(c) of the Act from A.Y. 2006-07 onwards - recourse Sec. 292B of the Act would also not help the case of the Revenue because the mistake cannot be said to be a pure technical objection – there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2587 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s. 272A (2)(K) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that since the tax was deducted only in the last quarter of the year under consideration, the TDS return was also filed for the last quarter and hence there was no loss to revenue and default is only of technical nature without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not filed the TDS return till the date of passing the order u/s. 272A(2)(k) as can be seen from the order of the Add!. CIT Rg. 1, Mumbai . 3. In this case a survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the office premises of the assessee. From the details collected during the course of survey it was found that the TDS returns for the financial year 2005-06 were not filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be treated as a mere technical mistake. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly annulled the penalty order on legal grounds. 5. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the AO. 6. As no one represented on behalf of the assessee, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the AO issued notice for levy of penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the Act. Meaning thereby that, the AO was clear in his mind when he was initiating penalty proceedings. Subsequently, the AO imposed penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is a case of oversight or wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
