TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned penalties to the extent of ₹ 25,000/- each in the interest of justice. Necessary computation to follow as per law. - I.T.A. Nos. 1250 & 1251/HYD/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2021 - S. S. Godara, Member (J) And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Member (A) For the Appellant : P. Murali Mohana Rao, AR For the Respondents : Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER S. S. Godara , Member ( J ) These two assessee's appeals for AYs. 2007-08 2008-09 arise from the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad's orders dated 15-07-2013 passed in appeal Nos. 0522 0526/CIT(A)-II, Hyd/2011-12; respectively in proceedings u/s. 272A(2)(K) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation of the assessee and observing that it is the statutory obligation of the deductor to obtain PAN numbers of the parties against whom the TDS was made, and the deductor could have filed e-tds returns with the available PAN nos. and could have filed corrected statements as and when he got the correct PAN nos. for the balance/remaining deductees are available, proceeded to impose the impugned penalties under S. 272A(2)(K) of the Act, for the failure on the part of the assessee to file Form Nos. 24Q and 26Q for all the four quarters of the four years under appeal, vide separate penalty orders dated 24.6.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 and dated 28.6.2011 for the other three years. 3. On appeal before the CIT(A) the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) Range (2012) 21 taxmann.com. 22 (Chandigarh). 6. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative, dutifully supported the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. 7. We heard both sides and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities land other material available on record. In this case, the penalty under S. 272A(2)(K) of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been levied on the ground that the assessee has failed to file quarterly returns, i.e. 24Q and 26Q within the stipulated time. When the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee for the reasons for non-filing of the quarterly returns, the assessee has submitted that the return could not be filed due to non-availability of PAN and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the return within the statutory period and no loss of revenue has been caused to the department, penalty should be set aside. Taking into consideration totality of facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the judicial precedents, we find that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under S. 272A(2)(K) of the Act. We accordingly delete the impugned penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under S. 272A(2)(K) of the Act for all the four years, allowing the grounds of the assessee in these appeals . 3. The Revenue thereafter filed its tax appeals before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court. Their lordships judgement dt. 26-11-2014 has allowed the same vide following observations: I.T.T.A. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of three months from the date of communication of this order. The appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs . 4. We are informed that the assessee has filed its review application Nos. 457 458/2015 on 19-03-2015 and the same are stated to be pending as on date. It is in this backdrop of facts that the instant second round of proceedings has come up for hearing before us. 5. We have heard rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned penalties imposed in both the lower proceedings. Suffice to say, there is no rebuttal from the departmental side to the clinching fact that since the TDS deductees had not furnished or made available their respective PANs to the assessee/deductor, it was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
