Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2473 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES BCHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1023/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 THE BANK OF BARODA, V THE ITO, TDS-II, SCO 62-63, SECTOR 17-B, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AABCM-5744P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 20.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.6.2013 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 27.07.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1 . THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMI SSING APPEAL BY SAYING THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED LATE BY ONE DAY. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF INCOME TAX ACT AMOUNT ING TO RS 10000/- 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE FINAL HEARING. 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD AND WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE P RESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AS THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS FILED LATE BY ONE DAY. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS) WAS DUE TO BE FILED BY 30.4.2011 WHICH WAS A SATURDAY. THE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) ON 2.5.2011. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD AS THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON 30 .4.2011 WHICH WAS A SATURDAY AND 1.5.2011 WAS SUNDAY AND THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED THE APPEAL ON 2.5.2011 I.E. ON THE NEXT WORKING DAY WHICH WAS A M ONDAY. IN THE ABOVESAID FACTS, THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD ARE, TH US ERRONEOUS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND AS SUCH THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT O UT OF 54 DEDUCTEES, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE PAN DETAILS OF O NE DEDUCTEE IN THE E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX FILED IN FO RM NO. 26Q FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 ON 6.3.2009. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SA ID INFORMATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 26.3.2011 LEVIED PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR BEIN G FILED AFTER A DELAY OF ONE DAY. 8. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERV ED BY SENDING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR ADJU DICATING THE SAID ISSUE, BOTH IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE 3 SMALLNESS OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. THE ASSES SEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAD FILED A R EVISED/CORRECTION STATEMENT ON 5.9.2011 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE SAID COR RECTION STATEMENT IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IN CASE WHER E THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FURNISHED THE DETAILS, WHICH THOUGH WERE NOT FURNIS HED BEFORE THE AO, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE CORREC TION STATEMENT HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPECT OF PAN DETAILS OF BALANCE DEDUCTEE (1) THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVESAID FACTS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE CORRECTION STATEM ENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SO FILED THE CORRECTIO N STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THEN NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 272B OF THE ACT. THE PERUSAL OF THE CORRECTION STATEMENT FILED BEFORE US REFLECTS THREE DIFFERENT CORRECTIONS AND IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHICH CORRECTION STATEMENT RELAT ES TO THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOW LA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH JUNE,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH