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

2016 (11) TMI 250 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (11) TMI 250 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 272A (2)(k) - delay in is furnishing return of tds - Held that:- We have seen that before levying the penalty neither the ACIT/AO nor the Commissioner (Appeal) while deciding the appeal of the assessee made any observation that the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty by the act of his conduct. As per our considered opinion while levying the penalty the authority must record its satisfaction that the act of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me excuse while furnishing the reply to the notice of initiation of penalty. She had voluntarily filed return before issuance of the notice for initiation of penalty. In our considered opinion that it is a fit case for deleting the penalty as the assessee came forward with honesty. However, the observation made hereinabove may not be precedent for future references. With these observations we delete the penalty for all three assessment years by accepting appeal of the assessee. - ITA Nos. 6334 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

of ld CIT (Appeals) are common thus all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by common order. For the appreciation of facts, we shall take up appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 being ITA No. 6334/M/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee availed for a certificate under section 197 of the Act for deduction of tax at lower rate. And as per the provisions of Income Tax Act assessee has to file TDS return in form No. 24Q and 26Q for four quarters i.e. for first quart .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT issued notice to the assessee levying the penalty. In response to the notice assessee contended that the assessee is a senior citizen and has filed return voluntarily. The reply of assessee was not considered sufficient by AO/ ACIT and thus a penalty for delay in is furnishing return of tedious was limit at the rate of rupees hundred per day for the delayed period. Accordingly a penalty of ₹ 1 28200 was worked out for a by 2008 - 09. 3. Similarly for a wide 2000 910 the penalty was wor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld AR for the assessee argued that assessee is a senior citizen, she had voluntarily deposited the tax deducted by her in the return of TDS. It was argued that a lenient view may be taken against the assessee. The ld AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 8525/M/2010 in ACIT versus Karrox Technology (P) Limited, ACIT Vs Lok Prakashan Ltd in ITA No. 2815/Ahd /2009, ACI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rther argued that the assessee despite given sufficient proportionately did not appear before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The ld DR for revenue prayed that the order of authorities below is well reasoned and does not require any further interference from the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. There is no dispute that the tax deducted by assessee at source was deposited. The dispute is about the delay in fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for assessee argued that a lenient view may be taken as assessee himself and voluntarily filed returns though admittedly the return was submitted beyond the time provided under the statue. We have seen that before levying the penalty neither the ACIT/AO nor the Commissioner (Appeal) while deciding the appeal of the assessee made any observation that the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty by the act of his conduct. As per our considered opinion while levying the penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in Chapter XVII of the Act. The assessee accordingly deducted the tax and also paid the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within time is also not in dispute. Further, the assessee was liable to file quarterly statements in Form No.24Q and 26 is also not in dispute. The assessee has furnished the said quarterly statements with certain delay. The Learned Assessing Officer observing the delay in furnishing of the quarterly statements levied penalty of ₹ 4,47,200/- as .....

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 section 273B of the Act he deleted the levy of penalty. We find that it is not in dispute that the quarterly statements were filed by the 8 assessee though with certain delay and the taxes deducted by the assessee were paid to the credit of Central Government by the assessee within prescribed time. The aforesaid delay in filing the quarterly statements by the assessee was certainly a default on the part of the assessee which attracted penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act unless the assessee sho .....

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 assesseecompany and its employees. We find that the provisions of furnishing of the quarterly statements were introduced under subsection (3) of section 200 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1- 4-2005. We find that Revenue could not bring any material before us to controvert the above finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and to show that the assessee was earlier aware of this requirement of law. Further, on the facts of the case that the assessee has paid the tax wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

country that every person knows the law and it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so. It was also stated that it is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law . Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court 9 in the case of CIT vs. K P V S Mohammad Rowther & Co. 232 ITR 176 (Mad) held that ignorance of law can be a reasonable cause for the failure and deletion of penalty was justified. Further, it is observed that the Revenue .....

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