TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarterly statement of deduction of tax in Form No.26Q, which were in fact, not available with the assessee at the material time. As and when the necessary information was obtained, the assessee corrected the lapse and revised the statement by furnishing due particulars thereof. In my considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty by relying on the judgment of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court ), wherein laid down that penalty cannot be ordinarily imposed unless the party obliged either acts deliberately in defiance of law or is guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.492 to 495/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the assessee and ordered for the deletion of penalty imposed for four different quarters of the financial year 2009-10. The Revenue is aggrieved against the deletion of such penalty. 3. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material available on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. As such, I am proceeding to dispose of these appeals ex parte qua the assessee. 4. It is observed that the AO imposed penalty u/s 272B for violation of the provisions of section 139(5B), which read as under:- 139A. (5B) Where any sum or income or amount has been paid after deducting tax under Chapter XVIIB, every person deducting tax under that Chapter shall quote the permanent account numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees. (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be passed unless the person, on whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed, is given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 6. It is obvious that the provisions of sub-section (2) are not attracted when there is a violation of sub-section (5B) of section 139A. Such violation shall be covered under the provisions of sub-section (1) which provides that in case of a failure `to comply with the provisions of section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars thereof. In my considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), in which the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down that penalty cannot be ordinarily imposed unless the party obliged either acts deliberately in defiance of law or is guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligation. I find that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances as are instantly prevailing. As such, I approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty for all the four quarters of the financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
