TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven otherwise also no penalty is leviable when there is a technical or venial breach of the Act. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 773/Chandi/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2011 - Shri H.L. Karwa, Hon ble Vice President, And Shri Mehar Singh, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri N K Saini For the Respondent : None ORDER Per H.L. Karwa, V.P This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dated 19.5.2011 in canceling the penalty of ₹ 7,70,000/- imposed u/s 272B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is running a Banking business und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll in time. v) That the appellant has most of the deductee s PANs in its possession. The appellant has tried his best to correct the PANs in the said return by filing of revised returns vide receipt No. 072370300151612 dated 18.9.2010, 072370300195185 dated 11.5.2011, 072370300197241 dated 14.5.2011. The appellant has placed reliance in the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad D Bench in the case of Financial Cooperative Bank Ltd v. ITO, Ward 2(3), Surat 116 ITD 358. 4. The ld. CIT(A) cancelled the penalty by stating that the TDS was deducted and deposited in time. According to him the default was only with regard to wrong quoting of PAN of 77 of the deductees as the deductees quoted wrong PAN. Correct PAN was given as soon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139A and rules 114B to 114D to show that obligation to quote PAN or GIR Number or to file Form No. 60 is that of the customer and not that of the Bank. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee deducted TDS correctly and revised PAN and filed the revised statement on Form No. 26Q, hence there was sufficient compliance of sec 139A. He, therefore, cancelled the penalty of ₹ 7,70,000/-. 5. We have heard Shri N.K. Saini, DR for the revenue at length and have also perused the materials available on record. In this case the assessee quoted wrong PANs for 77 deductees which was corrected on being pointed out by the ITO(TDS). Section 273B of the Act provides that no penalty is imposable for a failure u/s 272B, if it is proved by the dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees. In our view the assessee has proved that there was reasonable cause for alleged failure and hence no penalty is leviable. Even otherwise also no penalty is leviable when there is a technical or venial breach of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd V. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (S.C) has held as under:- An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was a guilty or conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
