9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty order imposed by the learned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Bhubaneswar which is per se illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act and has been made in gross violation to the principles of natural justice. 2. That, the learned CIT (A) has committed serious error in not quashing the penalty order as the order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner of income-tax (TDS), Bhubaneswar u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') is against the law and contrary to the evidence on record for which the said order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the learned CIT (A) has committed serious error in not deleting the penalty amount which has been pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the JCIT has levied the Penalty of Rs. 95,915/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 96,902/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 by following tables:- Form Type Quarter Due date Date of filing Delay in days Amount of TDS Involved Amount of Penalty 24Q 1 st 15.7.2009 31.5.2012 1050 0 0 24Q 2 nd 15.10.2009 -do- 958 2,519 2,519 24Q 3 rd 15.1.2010 -do- 866 0 0 24Q 4th 15.5.2010 -do- 746 0 0 26Q 1 st 15.7.2009 29.1.2012 928 0 0 26Q 2 nd 15.10.2009 -do- 836 17,609 17,609 26O 3 rd 15.1.2010 -do- 744 16,487 16,487 26Q 4th 30.6.2010 -do- 593 13,84,567 59,300 Total 6721 14,21,182 95,915 For A.Y. 2011-12 Form Type Quarter Due date Date of filing Delay in days Amount of TDS Involved Amount of Penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isted the e-filing of such returns as late as making the assessee literate about the data to be uploaded on the basis of tax deducted at source already given credit to by the I.T. Department on the basis of TDS certificates furnished by the assessee namely the deductee. The bonafide is established beyond doubt when the very fact that the quarterly returns for more than four quarters and less than eight quarters were filed simultaneously on the same date when assuming but not accepting that the assessee in default become suddenly computer literate. We have also considered the submissions of the learned DR that the filing of quarterly statement was in favour of the assessee on the basic connotation that the deductee would only be given credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt refused to acknowledge. Therefore, the computer generated number for acknowledging such receipt of such statements was not in the hands of the assessee insofar as the generation of that number would have never occurred till such time the PANs and the information available on AS-26 would have been tallied by the computer system itself. We have been submitted that it was not the case that the assessee was in default not being computer literate their principal officers who have been held responsible for such late filing of the quarterly statements was an administrative glitch. It was not in the interest of the Government employee to hold back the information which they have already gathered insofar as they are now being governed by the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner prescribed by the statute. The penalty u/s 272 (A)(2) cannot be levied in a routine manner. Law is well settled that a bonafide breach cannot lead to a penalty u/s. 272(A) [Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)]. In the present case of the assessee, either Government bodies or aided by Govt., are public office and since the tax deduction and payment are made by treasury and there is undisputedly no default. There arises, no reason for non-filing of TDS return with an intentional act or willful act to attract a quasi-criminal, imposition of penalty. The assessee has relied on the decisions of the honorable High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Superintendent Engineer [2002] 177 CTR (Raj) 586 and the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
