TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar that the ‘Person Responsible’ had a bonafide reason for the delay in filing TDS returns. Being required to comply with the TDS requirements and compliances for the first time and that too not being specifically intimated to do so by the authority who was earlier doing it, the ‘Person Responsible’s belief that the authority was continuing to do so was a bonafide and reasonable belief. Filing of TDS return later on, only on being required to do so by the ITO TDS, automatically resulted in delay on account of a reasonable cause. There is no merit in the contention of the CIT(Appeals) that the penalty was justified considering the huge period of delay. The assessee having duly explained the cause for the delay. “Person Responsible” cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (3) of section 200 of the Act. The person responsible [hereinafter referred to as PR ] making the aforesaid compliance was put to notice requiring him to show cause as to why penalty under the provisions of section 272A(2)(k) read with section 274 of the Act not to be levied for late filing of the quarterly statements. In response, it was submitted that TDS of officers and staff working in the jurisdiction of PR was being deducted by PCDA WC, Chandigarh and TDS return was also being filed by them. It was submitted that on 27.03.2012, PCDA WC, Chandigarh, directed the assessee PR to obtain separate TAN, DDO Registration No., DDO Code, PIN code of Patiaia office etc. Thereafter all the said things was applied and received and further inti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been levied for the technical breach of not filing the quarterly statement within the stipulated period and that there was no loss in as much as the due taxes were paid on time. Even if the aforesaid technical breach be considered venial in view of the fact that there is no loss of revenue as taxes have been deducted and paid to the treasury of the Government, the default on the part of PR cannot be treated with levity as the responsibility cast upon him has not been discharged as per the statutory provision in this regard. It is also not a case of a default for a day or two. The default continued for more than a year which goes on to show that the PR treated the statutory provision of law with an undeserving contempt. If due care and cauti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing out of the present appeal and leave for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same. 7. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee reiterated the contentions made before the CIT(Appeals) that there was reasonable cause for the delay. Our attention was drawn to the submissions made in this regard before the CIT(Appeals) placed at Paper Book page 1 to 3 as under: The TDS of the appellant and officers and staff working under; him was being deducted at sources by PCDA WC, Chandigarh and return of TDS was being filed by them. On 27/03/2012 appellant had received a letter from PCDA WC, Chandigarh to apply and obtain separate TAN, DDO Registration No., DDO Code, PIN code of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of the belief that the TDS compliances would be continued by PCDA WC and it was only when notices of non compliance was received from the ITO-TDS that the assessee became aware of its default which was immediately complied with. Our attention was drawn to a datewise state of case annexed with the submissions as under: It was also pointed out that documents evidencing the same had also been annexed thereto .Ld.Counsel for the assessee therefore contended that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the existence of reasonable cause for the late deposit of TDS returns and the findings of the CIT(A) in this regard were therefore incorrect.It was contended that the penalty levied therefore ought to be deleted. The Ld. DR on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the first time and that too not being specifically intimated to do so by the authority who was earlier doing it, the Person Responsible s belief that the authority was continuing to do so was a bonafide and reasonable belief. Therefore, the filing of TDS return later on, only on being required to do so by the ITO TDS, automatically resulted in delay on account of a reasonable cause. There is no merit in the contention of the CIT(Appeals) that the penalty was justified considering the huge period of delay. The assessee having duly explained the cause for the delay. Person Responsible cannot be held responsible for the delay nor can be said to have consciously disregarded the obligation cast upon him. 10. In view of the above, we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
