TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t provisions of the Act. The ITO(TDS) instead of initiating proceedings U/S 272A(2)(k) of the Act should have mentioned that " the case is being referred separately for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act to the Addl.CIT(TDS)" who was the competent authority. Thus it is held that the order passed by Addl.CIT(IDS) u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act dated 16-03-2010 is held as fully valid. Submissions made by the appellant on the issue of matter being barred by limitation are hereby rejected. A perusal of the aforesaid statement reveal that there is definitely delay in furnishing e-1DS returns in Form Nos.24Q, 26Q and 27EQ for the relevant accounting period. Thus the appellant's contention that there was no default in furnishing e- IDS returns has no force and is accordingly rejected. Thus the action of the Addl.CIT(IDS) in imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act is upheld in principle. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1044/Del/2013,ITA No. 2275/Del/2013,ITA No. 2276/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - Shri I.C. Sudhir and Shri Inturi Rama Rao, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Santosh Aggarwal, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri P. Dan Kanunjna, Sr.DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, conjectures, surmises and extraneous and irrelevant considerations; 11. That the penalty levied under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act may be deleted and the order(s) of Addl. CIT(TDS) and/or Commissioner(A) may kindly be quashed, set aside or annulled or modified; 12. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that as a result of survey/verification exercise carried out by the ITO(TDS), serious default on TDS payment were unearthed. It was noted further that the assessee had not filed e-TDS return in form No. 24Q, 26Q and 27EQ and also could not provide any reasonable cause for such to furnish the e-TDS returns by the due date. The ITO(TDS) initiated penalty proceedings under sec. 272A(2)(K) of the Act and referred the case to the Office of the Competent Authority i.e. Additional CIT(TDS). 4. Thereafter, notice under sec. 272A(2)(K) of the Act was issued on 25.2.2010 to the assessee by the learned Additional CIT(TDS) requiring him to expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the penalty of ₹ 1,90,500 levied by the Assessing Officer. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has, however, failed to appreciate that the penalty order in question was barred by time limit under sec. 275 of the Act, there was sufficient reason for not filing of e-TDS return in time and thus within the provisions of sec. 273B of the Act, the penalty was liable to be deleted. 7. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with this submission that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has discussed the issue in detail before coming to a definite conclusion. 8. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has passed a comprehensive order discussing respective cases of the parties on the issue. In the assessment year 2006-07, the Learned CIT(Appeals) appreciating the submissions of the assessee has already directed the Assessing Officer to verify the factual position regarding filing of e-TDS returns for the quarters under consideration with reference to acknowledgement of e-filing of TDS return and accordingly compute penalty under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that the Addl.CIT(TDS) has wrongly imposed penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. It has further been contended by the appellant that according to the provisions of section 275 of the Act the order levying penalty could be passed either within a period of six months from end of the month in which the order was passed or by the end of financial year in which the order was passed. In terms of section 275 of the Act, the order levying penalty could be passed by 31-03-2009. The order levying penalty has however been passed on 16-03-2010. Therefore, the order is time barred. Regarding appellant's contentions that the order is barred by limitation, it is observed that the relevant provisions of section 272A(3) of the Act stipulate as under:- (3) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be imposed - (a) . (b) . (c) in any other case, by the [Joint] Director or [Joint] Commissioner. The ITO (TDS) in the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act dated 27~06-2008 in the appellant's case for AY.2007-08 had though initiated proceedings u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act for default for non-filing of e-TDS returns in Form No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
