9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e quarterly TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the second quarter by the due date and there was a delay of 191 days in filing the same. During penalty proceedings, in response to show cause notice, the assessee stated that no penalty under section 272A(2)(k) should be levied since the delay in filing return was on account of systems error and due to delay in filing of return by Chartered Accountant on account of mismatch in data files. It was further stated that the TDS had been deposited in time but due to aforestated reasons delay had occurred in filing Form No. 26Q for the second quarter. The AO found the reason for delay insufficient / unreasonable and therefore, levied penalty under section 272A(2)(k) amounting to Rs. 19,100/-. 4. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of there being a reasonable cause explaining the failure for which penalty was sought to be levied. Moreover the Ld.AR relied upon the judgment in the case of Sushma Tiwari Vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No. 54/LKW/2011, Royal Metal Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT(TDS)in ITA No. 6840/Mum/2008, and The Collector Land Acquisition vs. Addl. CIT(TDS) in ITA Nos. 1226 to 1229/Chandi/2011 in support of his contention that for a technical and venial breach no penalty was leviable under section 272A(2)(k) . 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material available on record. 9. We find that the assessee had explained to the authorities below the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions 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 statute. " In view of the above, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in canceling the penalty. We, therefore, uphold his order and dismiss the appeal." In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
