9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee has deducted tax at source for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13. However, there was a delay in furnishing quarterly returns/statements. The details of belated furnished quarterly statements for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are as follows: For A.Y. 2010-11: RRR Number Form Num Periodicity Due Date Date of filing Delay (Days) 60510100329615 24Q Q4 15/06/10 29/10/10 136 60510100316831 26Q Q1 15/07/09 29/09/10 441 60510100316842 26Q Q2 15/10/09 29/09/10 349 60510 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows: "3.4 I have carefully considered the appellant's contentions/submissions and also perused the penalty orders for the assessment year in question. As rightly observed by the A.O., the requirement of filing the TDS returns as per the provisions of section 200(3) itself is technical only in the sense that it does not involve any revenue implication and, therefore, the penalty leviable u/s 272A(2)(k) for non-compliance with such a requirement cannot be held to be unjustifiable on the ground that the delay in filing the TDS returns in time is only a technical default. What should be taken into consideration is the impact the delayed filing of the statutory forms has on the deductees while dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of N.K. Media Ventures (P) Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT (TDS), Bhubaneshwar reported in (2015) 59 Taxmann.com 365 (Cuttack Trib.). The Ld. D.R. strongly supported the order passed by the Income tax authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only contention raised by the A.R. was that penalty, if any should be restricted for the period from the date of payment of TDS where the tax was paid late up to the date of filing of TDS statement, since before the payment of TDS, e-TDS return could not be furnished. In this context, we refer to the order of the Cuttack Bench in the case of N.K. Media Ventures (P) Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT(TDS), Bhubaneshwar (supra), where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to levy the penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act only for the delay in payment of tax by the assessee. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is modified accordingly. 8. Similar view was held by the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Nava Maharashtra Vidhyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT Pune reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 240 (Pune Trib.) The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows: "Para 28 ..................In this bunch of appeals, there are cases where the assessee has defaulted in not depositing tax deducted at source in time. In such cases, the returns were delayed because of default on behalf of the deductor. In such cases, penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act is leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt u/s 201(1) of the Act. The assessee is also liable to pay interest for the period of default till the payment of tax u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The assessee is also liable for penalty u/s 271C of the Act and prosecution u/s 276B of the Act. Therefore, the period levying the penalty has to be counted from the date of payment of tax because the delay in filing the return till the date of payment of tax was already explained on the ground that the assessee could not pay the taxes for which separate penal provisions exist. 10. In the light of the above judicial pronouncement and the aforesaid reasoning, we direct the A.O. to levy penalty u/s 272(2)(k) of the Act from the date of payment of TDS up to the date of filing of e-TDS statements, sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
