9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee. ITA No. 784/Del/2015 is against order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-Meerut for assessment year 2008-09 wherein, vide the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed imposition of penalty of Rs. 32,900/- imposed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called to 'Act'). Similarly, ITA No. 785/Del/2015 is challenging the confirmation of penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 were filed late by 228 days for the first quarter, 165 days for the second quarter and 150 days for the third quarter. Thus, the total number of days for late filing was counted to be 543 days. The AO further noted that the quarterly statements in Form 24Q were also delayed by 543 days. He, accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,08,600/- for both the defaults. 3.1 Similarly, in assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. CIT (A) noted that had the assessee committed the default of only late filing, it could have been held to be a mere technical breach but since the tax was not also deposited within the prescribed period, penalty was imposable. The Ld. CIT (A), however, held that as there were mistakes in counting the number of days of default and further that in assessment year 2008-09 the delay in filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facing. However, it is seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has not considered this submission of the assessee nad has upheld the penalty on the ground that even the tax deducted at source was not deposited in time. However, it is our considered opinion severe financial crisis is a reasonable cause which would have prevented the asssessee from depositing the TDS within the prescribed time period. In such a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
