TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that no penalty shall be levied if reasonable cause for the failure is established by the assessee. Therefore the penalty could not be levied u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act. Also an admitted fact that the Tax deducted at source, to which the F.No. 26 Q pertained, was paid within the prescribed time. No loss as such has therefore been caused to the Revenue. Delay in filing return is at best a technical or venial breach of law and no contumacious conduct can be attributed to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.161/Chd/2015 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2015 - SHRI H.L. KARWA, HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MRS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh For the Respondent : Sh. S.K. Mi ttal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Executive Engineer [2010] 320 ITR 494 and various other judgments in support of its contention. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k). 5. Aggrieved by the same the assessee filed the present appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the penalty of ₹ 19,100/- levied u/s 272A(2)(k) which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to consider the reasonable cause pleaded in the correct perspective which lead t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee constitutes reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B, which provides that no penalty shall be levied if reasonable cause for the failure is established by the assessee. Therefore the penalty could not be levied u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act. 10. Moreover it is an admitted fact that the Tax deducted at source, to which the F.No. 26 Q pertained, was paid within the prescribed time. No loss as such has therefore been caused to the Revenue. In such circumstances, the delay in filing return is at best a technical or venial breach of law and no contumacious conduct can be attributed to the assessee. 11. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 26 has held as under : An order imposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
