TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate or the assessee got any benefit due to delay in furnishing the statement. Thus assessee has given sufficient explanation for delay in furnishing the statement of TDS within the prescribed period. Considering the decision of Hindustan Steel Ltd Versus State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court] when there was no contemptuous or dishonest act on behalf of assessee in view of the explanation offered by assessee, we accept the explanation offered by the assessee. Thus, respectfully following the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the Acquafill Polymers Co Private Limited (2016 (2) TMI 1079 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) we accept the ground of appeal of the assessee and direct the assessing officer to delete the entire penalty levied under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements Date of filing the return No. of delay Q-1/26Q 74486 74486 15.07.2009 29.07.2010 544 Q-2/26Q 66,032 66,032 15.10.2009 29.07.2010 422 Q-3/26Q 66,348 66,348 15.01. 2009 29.07.2010 356 Q-4/26Q 73,512 73,512 15.06.2010 29.07.2010 209 Q-4/26Q 7,707 7,707 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to deduct tax wherever deductible and paid to the accounts of the government, the assessee has to ensure timely submission of TDS statement. The excuse made by the assessee for getting skilled staff etc, are not tenable and reasonable cause to see the benefit under section 273B of the Act. The Assessing Officer further concluded that there is a clear-cut laxity on the part of assessee which cannot be now put forth as a reasonable cause for not filing statement in time. The Assessing Officer on the basis of number of delays in furnishing the return levied penalty @ ₹ 100/- per day for each quarterly statement and worked out the penalty of ₹ 1,63,807/-. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the penalty was sustained. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate Limited 244 ITR 147 (Gujarat), decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Acquafil Polymers Co. Private Limited (ITA No. 3246 3247/Ahd/2015 dated 03.02.2016, Kiri Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2733/Ahd/2015 dated 01.01.2016, Br. Manager, State Bank of India Vs. ACIT [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 268], Branch Manager Punjab National Bank [(2014) 140 TTJ 622], ACIT Vs. Lok Prakashan Ltd. [ITA No. 2815/Ahd /2009 dt. 08.01.2010]. On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue supported the order of authorities below. The learned DR further argued that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for delay in furnishing the return of TDS. The plea of the assessee that the accountant left the employment is the self serving statement of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of authority to be exercised judiciously and on the consideration of all relevant circumstances even if minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, where there is technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statue. The Hon ble Apex Court further in case of CIT Vs Eli Lilly and Co (India)(P) Limited(supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
