The Vitta & Lekha Adhikari, Basic Shiksha, Lucknow V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (T.D.S), Lucknow

ITA 111/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4314 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS.111 TO 114/LKW/16 A. YRS.:2008-09, 10-11 TO 12-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.111 TO 114/LKW/2016 A.YRS.:2008-09, 10-11 TO 12-13 THE VITTA & LEKHA ADHIKARI, BASIC SHIKSHA, 2 ND FLOOR, SHIKSHA BHAWAN, JAGAT NARAIN ROAD, CHOWK, LUCKNOW. TAN:LKNBO2363E VS. JT. C.I.T. (TDS), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-4, LUCKNOW ALL DATED 04/01/2016 RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 10-11 TO 12-13. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THO UGH THE NOTICE WAS DULY SENT THROUGH SPEED POST. WE, THEREFORE, DE CIDED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING LEARNED D. R. AND CONSI DERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 08/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/07/2016 I.T.A. NOS.111 TO 114/LKW/16 A. YRS.:2008-09, 10-11 TO 12-13 2 3. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR, WE NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX DUE AT SOURCE AND HAS ALSO DEPOSITED THE TAX WHICH HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DOU BT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE RETURN IN FORM 24Q LATE FOR THE AFORE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR. THE REASON BEING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER AND WAS NOT AWARE OF ABOUT THE TECHNICALITIES OF E-FILI NG OF THE RETURN. 4. THE PROVISION OF E-FILING OF THE RETURN HAS COME INTO FORCE FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN OUR OPI NION, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEING A NON TECHNICAL PER SON NOT TO KNOW HOW E- FILING OF THE RETURN HAS TO TAKE PLACE EVEN IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR. WE NOTED THAT THE DDO IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT GO A COULD NOT FILE THE FORM 24Q WITHIN TIME WHEN INITIALLY THESE PROVISION S WERE BROUGHT INTO FORCE. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTE D THE TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHAPTER-XVII OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND HAS ALSO DEPOSITED THE SAME WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME. NO SUCH DEFAULT H AS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT AT THE INITIAL S TAGE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR AN ORGANIZATION WHERE TECHNICAL PERSONS WERE NOT EMPLO YED TO UNDERSTAND THE INTRICACIES OF E-FILING. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS C ASE ULTIMATELY FILED FORM 24Q ALTHOUGH LATE. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE FORM 24Q WAS NEVER FILED. THE OLD PERSON EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES WERE NOT AWARE OF ABOUT THE COMPUTER, THE LEARNING IS A PROCESS WHICH TAKES TIM E. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THESE DIFFICULTIES, THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE U/S 272A( 2)(K) ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 273B. THE PENALTY IS NOT AUTOM ATIC, IF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE TO COMPLY WITH THE TDS PROVISION, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. THE REASONABLE CAUSE DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NOR AT THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY. THE I.T.A. NOS.111 TO 114/LKW/16 A. YRS.:2008-09, 10-11 TO 12-13 3 REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN ENUMERATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. FEDCO (P) LTD. & ANOTHER VS. S.N. BILGRAMI AND OTHERS, AIR 1960 SC 415 (SC) AS UNDER: A. THIS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' IS ENUMERATED IN THE ORD ER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF FEDCO(P) LTD. VS.SN BILGRAMI AIR 1960 SC 415 AT PG 149 AS 'THERE CAN BE NO INVARIABLE STANDARD FOR REASONABLENESS IN SUCH MATT ERS EXCEPT THAT THE COURT'S CONSCIENCE MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE PERSONS AGAINST WHOM AN ACTION IS PROPOSED HAS HAD A FAIR C HANCE FOR CONVINCING THE AUTHORITY WHO PROPOSES TO TAKE ACTIO N AGAINST HIM TLIAT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH ACTION IS PROPOSED A RE NON- EXISTENT OR EVEN IF THEY DO NOT JUSTIFY THE PROPOSE D ACTION. THE DECISION OF THIS QUESTION WILL NECESSARILY DEPE ND UPON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, INCL UDING THE NATURE OF ACTION PROPOSED, THE MATERIAL ON WHICH TH E ALLEGATIONS ARE BASED, THE ATTITUDE OF THE PARTY AG AINST WHOM THE ACTION IS PROPOSED IN SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H PROPOSED ACTION, THE NATURE OF PLEA RAISED BY HIM I N REPLY, THE REQUESTS FOR FURTHER OPPORTUNITY THAT MAY BE MA DE, HIS ADMISSION BY CONDUCT OR OTHERWISE OF SOME OF ALL TH E ALLEGATIONS AND ALL OTHER MATTERS WHICH HELP THE MI ND IN COMING TO A FAIR CONCLUSION ON THE QUESTION. B. IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNORS INDIA (P) LTD . VS. CIT[2001] 118 TAXMAN 433(DELHI) IT IS ENUNCIATED AS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' AS APPLIED TO HUMAN ACTION IS TH AT WHICH WOULD CONSTRAIN A PERSON AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND O RDINARY PRUDENCE. IT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS A PROBABLE CAUSE. IT MEANS AN HONEST BELIEF FOUNDED UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS, O F THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH, ASSUM ING THEM TO BE TRUE, WOULD REASONABLY LEAD ANY ORDINARY PRUD ENT AND CAUTIOUS MAN, PLACED IN THE POSITION OF THE PERSON CONCERNED, TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RIGHT THING TO D O. 4.1 IN OUR OPINION, THESE DECISIONS ARE EQUALLY APP LICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE EX CEPT THERE IS A I.T.A. NOS.111 TO 114/LKW/16 A. YRS.:2008-09, 10-11 TO 12-13 4 TECHNICAL VENIAL. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/07/2016) SD/. SD/. ( ABY T. VARKEY ) ( P. K . BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:27/07/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR