9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;the Act'). 2. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The orders Of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant had not committed any default actionable u/s. of the Act and consequently, the levy of penalty deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the quarterly statements in Form No.26Q and consequently, the imposition Of penalty is unjustified and liable to be cancelled. 4. Without pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the prescribed quarterly returns is caused on account of the ignorance of law on the part of the appellant company which is newly set up. The TDS Officer had brushed aside the said explanation of the appellant and proceeded to levy penalty vide order dt.4.2.2013 passed under Section 272A of the Act for an amount of Rs. 94,300. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred before the CIT (Appeals) who had confirmed the levy of penalty vide the impugned order by holding as under :- 4. The judicial pronouncements discussed in paragraph-3 above, makes it clear that even where the tax deducted at Source have been credited to the Central Government along with the interest chargeable u/s 201(1A) and there is no loss or revenue, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt proceedings. Accordingly, in my view, there was no reasonable cause to justify the delay ranging between 76 to 381 days in filing quarterly statements. During the hearing on 17.08.2017 the AR of the appellant has taken a new stand that in view Of the words 'the failure continues' used in sub-section (2) of section 272A in, the phrase "he shall pay. by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues", the penalty can only be imposed during the continuation of failure and not thereafter. The contention is not acceptable as the penalty has to be imposed only after the quarterly statement is filed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d quarterly returns and the appellant deducted the tax at source on the payments of rent and remitted the amount to the account of Government of India belatedly. The delay was explained to the TDS Officer stating that the delay had occurred on account of delay in remittance of tax deducted amount to the Govt. Account and ignorance of the provisions of law on the subject. This explanation was found to be not plausible by both the TDS Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals). We note that the provisions of Section 272A has to be read with the provisions of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section 272A of the Act, no penalty shall be imposable for the failure refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above facts, the explanation tendered by the assessee cannot be termed as unreasonable or unplausible. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the case on hand is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 272A of the Act. The decisions relied on by the ld. DR in the case of Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (supra) & Raja Harpal Singh Inter College (supra) are not applicable, in as much as, the decisions were rendered considered that the explanation tendered by the assessee in support of belated submissions of the returns was found to be not plausible.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th day of May, 2018. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
