TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act have rightly been imposed upon the appellant in all the three financial years. The assessee had failed to explain that there was any reasonable cause or failure to comply with the provisions of law and the authorities below had concurrently concluded that there was delay in filing the tax deducted at source returns without any justifiable reason or cause. - Decided against assessee - I. T. A. Nos. 421, 423 and 424 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Raj Rahul Garg, JJ. For the Appellant : M. R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : -- JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of three appeals bearing I. T. A. Nos. 421, 423 and 424 of 2015 as according to learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from I. T. A. No. 421 of 2015. 2. I. T. A. No. 421 of 2015 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated April 30, 2015 (annexure A-3) passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench A , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. Hence, the instant appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the penalty of ₹ 4,84,945 levied under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act was unwarranted. Section 200(3) of the Act and rule 31A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules ) were referred to by the learned counsel. It was also urged that there was reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act on the basis of which there was justification for delay in filing the tax deducted at source returns. Moreover, the tax deducted at source was deposited within time and, therefore, there was no loss of revenue. Relying upon the judgments of this court in CIT (TDS) v. Executive Engineer [2010] 320 ITR 494 (P H) ; H. M. T. Ltd., Tractors Division v. CIT [2005] 274 ITR 544 (P H) ; the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board [2004] 265 ITR 686 (Raj) and the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Accounts Officer, Telecom [2006] 281 ITR 302 (All), it was urged that no penalty under section 272A(k) of the Act was exigible. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find no merit in the appeals. 6. It would be expedient to refer to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the specified time. The quantum of penalty thereunder is a sum of one hundred rupees for every day default till the date of filing the tax deducted at source return but the same would be limited to the amount of tax deductible or collectable as the case may be. It is in the following terms : 272A. (2). If any person fails- . . . (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the pro viso to sub-section (3) of section 206C ; 9. Having noticed the relevant statutory provisions, we proceed to examine the contention relating to concept of no loss of revenue for exigibility of penalty, as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 200(3) of the Act read with rule 31A(2) of the Rules enjoins upon any person deducting tax at source to file statements of deduction of tax at source within the prescribed period specified thereunder. In our opinion, the penal provisions contained in section 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been inserted for the purpose of compliance of filing of tax deducted at source returns in time in Form No. 26Q by due dates mentioned in rule 31A(2) of the Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons would stand to suffer on whose behalf taxes have been deducted for not getting benefit of those taxes for no fault of theirs due to non-filing of statements on time. Therefore, the law enunciated in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) has no applicability to the present case. 10. The appellant had filed the tax deducted at source returns late as per the details given below : Quarter Due date of filing of TDS return Date of filing of TDS return Delays in filing TDS returns Amount Amount of penalty Penalty restricted to 1st 15-7-2008 10-5-2013 1760 1,46,068 1,76,000 1,46,068 2nd 15-10-2008 10-5-2013 1668 35,377 1,66,800 35,377 3rd 15-1-2009 10-5-2013 1576 1,90,192 1,57,600 1,57,600 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
