Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 332 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (7) TMI 332 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty order under sec. 272A(2)(k) - as a result of survey/verification exercise carried out by the ITO(TDS), serious default on TDS payment were unearthed - 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 - whether penalty order barred by limitation? - Held that:- FAA for the assessment year 2006-07 on similar issue held that legally the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her hand, the action of ITO, (TDS) in initiating proceedings U/S 272A(2)(k) of the Act is not correct in view of the relevant 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 hel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

)(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 PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER In these appeals, the assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following common grounds: 1. That the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals), Muzaffarnag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was void and illegal; 4. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the penalty order dated 16.03.2010 passed under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act was not time barred as per the provisions of sec. 275 of the Act and as such not bad in law; 4.1 That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the time limit for passing an order under sec. 272A(3)(k) starts from 25.02.2010 the date on which the first notice under the said provisions was issued by the Addl.CIT(TDS); 4.2 That the Learned CIT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant to file the statements/forms; 7. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of sec.272A(2)(k) of the Act were not applicable and the penalty order was void and illegal; 8. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the alleged failure and/or default to file the Statement/Forms, if any, was on account of a reasonable cause; 9. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding, the appellant has admitted its default for violation of provisions of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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(TD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not imposed for such default. The Additional CIT(TDS) thereafter has noted that there was no compliance and hence case was again fixed for hearing on 09.03.2010 and again the same remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer (Additional CIT-TDS) held the default on the part of the assessee as negligent behavior and a deliberate attempt to mislead the department. He noted further that the assessee had not been able to establish that there was a reasonable cause for non-filing of e-TDS return. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns during last two years whereas the default was in respect of last quarter of the financial year; the order levying penalty is barred by limitation and there was sufficient reasons for non-filing of the e-TDS returns in time. The first appellate authority, however, agreed with the assessee that penalty order is silent about the period of default and consequent computation of penalty. The first appellate authority accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty as directed by the first appellate authority for the assessment year 2006-07 at ₹ 43,500 and for assessment year 2007-08 at ₹ 1,94,300. He submitted that in the assessment year 2008-09, 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-TD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. This direction was given by the Learned CIT(Appeals) appreciating the contention of the assessee that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

accordingly re-compute penalty imposed under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 10. In the assessment year 2008-09, no such grievance regarding period of default and consequent computation of penalty was raised, thus, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 11. We thus find that wherever the assessee was justified in their contentions that has been appreciated by the Learned CIT(Appeals) and appropriate order has been passed by him accordingly. 12. For a ready r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een carefully considered. It is observed that the AO[Addl.CIT(TDS)] had imposed penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act at s.8,98,2001- on the ground that assessee had violated provisions of section 206 of the Act by not filing e- TDS returns in Form Nos.24Q, 26Q, 27EQ and as such was liable for penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Further no reasonable cause had been given for such default. On the other hand the appellant' has contended that the ITO(TDS), Ghaziabad in the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the eyes of law as no such powers is conferred upon the ITO(IDS) by the Act. However, ITO(TDS) had rectified his mistake by referring the matter of imposition of penalty u/s 272A( e )(k) of the Act to the competent authority i.e. Addl.CIT(TDS), Ghaziabad. Therefore, legally the limitation starts from the issue of first notice by the Addl.CIT(TDS)[ competent authority] dated 25-02- '2010. The penalty has been imposed before 30-08-2010 i.e. on 16-03-2010. Therefore, it cannot be said that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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. The appellant has contended that there was no default in furnishing of e- TDS retur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version