Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Income Tax Officer, TDS Rohtak Versus The Executive Engineer

2016 (1) TMI 1069 - ITAT DELHI

Penalty u/s 272B - default in quoting Permanent account number - TDS return - Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 139A - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- The assessee quoted the PAN numbers which were provided by the deductees, so if there was any mistake in the PAN numbers that was not on account of the assessee and moreover the mistake was rectified when the correct PAN numbers were furnished by the deductees and this fact has been appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant : Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv For the Respondent : Shri S K Jain, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench These four appeals by the department are directed against the common orders dated 15.10.2013 of ld. CIT(A), Rohtak for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Common issues are involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grounds raised in these appeals read as under: "1. On the facts and c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s office. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty u/s 272B of the I.T. Act ignoring the facts that the assessee PR has quoted invalid PAN in violation of sub-section (5B) of section 139A of the I.T. Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard." 4. The only grievance of the department in these appeals relates to the deletion of the penalties levied by the AO u/s 272B I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were imposed for default in respect of 7, 134, 156 and 74 deductees. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee deducted tax correctly and filed statement in Form No. 24Q as such there was sufficient compliance for the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. It was further stated that quarterly returns were filed by the assessee timely and only 18 invalid PANs of deductees out of total 195 were neither element of "Mens Rea" nor th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee deleted the penalties by observing in para 4 of the impugned order as under: "4. I have considered the issue and the written submission. From the facts, it is evident that the appellant filed TDS correction statement immediately on receipt of show cause notice generated by the system and a copy of acknowledgement was sent to the AO. The appellant received the final show cause notice of penalty beyond the specified date of compliance. Since the invalid/missing PANs have been made good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the deductees. Therefore, the penalty u/s 272B of the Act was rightly levied by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting those penalties. 8. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee corrected the mistakes in the PAN. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: - CIT (TDS) Vs Superintendent 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 assessee. Therefore, there was no malafide mistake and penalty u/s 272B was not leviable. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: -CIT and Another Vs GAIL (India) Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 711 (All) -Om Prakash Subhash Kumar Vs ITO (2012) 144 TTJ 38 (Del-Trib.) It was also submitted that the AO levied the penalty in respect of each of the deductees whereas the penalty if at all leviable was to be levied only on the basis of the return of TDS and not in respect of individual deductee. 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

see and the mistake in respect of the PAN of the deductees which was noted by the AO, was rectified whenever the assessee received the information about the correct PAN. In the present case, the PAN collected by the assessee were those which the deductees informed, so there was no fault of the assessee and there was also no failure to comply with the provisions of Section 139A of the Act. On a similar issue the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (TDS) Vs Superintendent of Polic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urther held as under: "That there was nothing to show that the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were erroneous in any manner. On appreciation of the entire matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal examined the explanation of the assessee and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause shown which would be a question of fact in the given facts and circumstances. Thus, there was no substance in the argument raised by the Revenue that there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder: "The penalty under section 272B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, will not ordinarily be imposed unless the assessee has either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct which is contumacious, dishonest or acted in conscious disregard to its obligation. The penalty under section 272B cannot be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. It can be imposed for failure to perform statutory obligation. The imposition of penalty for failure to perform a statutory obligati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version