Mandal Praja Parishad Officer, V. ITO(TDS), WARD -3(2), Vijayawada

CO 139/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9495 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOMALI KRISHNA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM ITA NO.466/VIZAG/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-2010 ITA NO.467/VIZAG/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2010-2011 ITA NO.468/VIZAG/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2011-2012 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 3(2) VIJAYAWADA. VS. MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER KAMEPALLY MANDAL KHAMMAM DISTRICT TAN : HYDM04415F. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.137/VIZAG/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2009-2010 CO NO.138/VIZAG/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2010-2011 CO NO.139/VIZAG/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2011-2012 MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER KAMEPALLY MANDAL KHAMMAM DISTRICT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 3(2) VIJAYAWADA. ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT.KOMALI KRISHNA, ADDL.CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N.HARI DATE OF HEARING : 03.03 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .0 3 .2014 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY (AM) : ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND DIRE CTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), VIJAYAWADA, DATED 26.03.2013, ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF PAN OF THE DEDUCTEES, E- TDS RETURN COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E AO SINCE IT WAS PASSED AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.466, 467 & 468/VIZAG/2013 CO NOS.137, 138 & 139/VIZAG/2013. MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER. 2 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SURVEY OPERATION U/S 1 33A WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 15.02.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED E-TDS QUARTERLY RETURNS / STATEMENTS U/S 200( 3) OF THE ACT IN FORM NOS.24Q & 26Q. PENALTY WAS LEVIED U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT, AFTER GIVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L. 3. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANCELLED THE PENALTIES LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREVENTED BY REASONABL E CAUSE AND THAT NO MALAFIDE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR BELATEDLY FILIN G OF QUARTERLY E-TDS RETURNS. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS MAINLY IN SU PPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. SMT.KOMALI KRISHNA, THE LEARNED ADDL.CIT, APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SRI G.V.N.HARI, THE LEARNED ADVOCATE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 6.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE PARA NO.5, IN PAGE NO. 5, HELD THAT THE PENALTIES IN QUESTION HAVE TO BE QUASHED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PRE VENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE RETURNS. THE REASONS CITED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ARE (A) THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AND CR EDITED THE SAME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THERE IS NO DEFA ULT ON THIS GROUND; ITA NOS.466, 467 & 468/VIZAG/2013 CO NOS.137, 138 & 139/VIZAG/2013. MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER. 3 (B) THERE WAS NO REGULAR MPDO IS POSTED TILL OCTO BER 2010 AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO OFFICER TO SPECIFI CALLY TAKE CARE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF FILING E-RETURNS; (C) FILING OF E-RETURNS WERE NEWLY INTRODUCED AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT EQUIPPED NOR HAVE BEEN CAPACI TATED WITH COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEPEND ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES; (D) THERE WAS A DELAY ON THE PART OF THE DEDUCTEES ON FURNISHING THEIR PAN DETAILS; (E) THE DELAY IF ANY WAS NOT INTENTIONAL NOR MALAF IDE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE OCCASION. 6.2 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THESE REA SONING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TO BE UPHELD AND THE APPEALS CHALLENGING THE CA NCELLATION OF PENALTIES BE DISMISSED. 6.3 THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BEING ONLY IN SUPPORT OF T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAVE TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS, IN VIE W OF OUR DECISION IN THE REVENUES APPEALS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM; DATED : 5 TH MARCH, 2014. DEVDAS* ITA NOS.466, 467 & 468/VIZAG/2013 CO NOS.137, 138 & 139/VIZAG/2013. MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER. 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA . 4. CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA . 5. DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM