Rajinder Kumar, Ambala City V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 142/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57749 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 139; 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.141/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SH.ANIL KUMAR, C/O DEV RAJ, VS. THE INCOME TAX OF FICER(TDS), M/S DEV RAJ ANIL KUMAR, PANCHKULA. VPO NANEOLA, DISTT. AMBALA. PAN: RTKA04764E ITA NO.142/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SH.RAJINDER KUMAR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TD S), GIRDHARI LAL RAJINDER KUMAR, PANCHKULA. SHOP NO.68, NEW GRAIN MARKET, AMBALA CITY. PAN: RTKK02682B ITA NO.143/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S BHARAT & CO., VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TD S), JAIN COLLEGE ROAD, VILL.GHEL, PANCHKULA. AMBALA CITY. PAN: RTKM03226G ITA NO.144/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) BALJEET AGRO FOODS, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(T DS), VILL. BULLANA , PANCHKULA. DISTT. AMBALA. PAN: RTKB03022F AND ITA NO.145/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SH.MOHINDER PAL, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS ), C/O MOHINDER RICE & GENERAL MILLS, PANCHKULA. CHOURMASTPUR, AMBALA. PAN: RTKM04111C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.03.2012 2 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THESE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER/S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DATED 18.11.2011, 19.12.2011 AND 29.11.2012 RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08/2008-09 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN ALL THE FIVE APPEALS R EADS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.10000/-(ITA NO.141,142,144&145/CHD/2012) AND RS.70,000/- (ITA NO.143/CHD/2012). 3. DIFFERENT ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AND ALL THE FIVE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.141,142,144&145/CHD/2012 ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272 B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,000/-. THE FACTS OF ALL THE CAS ES ARE IDENTICAL AND A REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.141/ CHD/2012 FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FILED THE TDS QUARTERLY STA TEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2006-07 IN FORM NO. 26Q ON 15.1.200 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SCRUTINY OF THE SAID E-TDS RETURN NO TED THAT THE PAN NUMBER OF ONE DEDUCTEE WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED AT 3 RS. 10,000/-. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD FILED ITS QUARTERLY TDS RE TURN FOR THE FIRST TIME AND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISM OF CORRECTIN G THE INFORMATION IN THE SAID E-TDS RETURN. THE CORRECTION STATEMENT WA S FILED ON 16.9.2010, WHICH WAS BEFORE THE LAST DATE OF HEARING. THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE FACTS OF ITA NO.143/CHD/2012 THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 07-08 ON 14.1.2008 AND PAN NUMBER OF 7 DEDUCTEES OUT OF 48 DEDUCTEES W ERE FOUND TO BE INVALID. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD FILED IT S E-TDS FOR THE FIRST TIME AND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISM OF CORR ECTING THE TDS RETURN. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED CORRECT ION STATEMENT ON 22.3.2011. THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING CORRECT ION STATEMENT WAS BECAUSE OF HEAVY FLOODS IN THE AMBALA REGION DUE TO WHICH TDS DATA HAD DAMAGED IN THE COMPUTERS. 7. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BECAUSE OF SMALLNESS OF ISSUE, WE PROCEED TO DE CIDE THE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE. 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272 B OF THE ACT. PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE IN ALL SUCH CASES W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 A(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD E-F ILED ITS QUARTERLY TDS RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 ON 15.1.2008/ 14.1.2008. IN THE SAID TDS RETURN, IT HAS REFLECTED INFORMATION IN RE SPECT OF CERTAIN DEDUCTEES. HOWEVER, PAN NUMBER OF ONE DEDUCTEE FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. IN ITA NO.143/ CHD/2012 INFORMATION OF 7 DEDUCTEES WAS INCORRECT. THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH 4 THE REQUISITE INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. HOWEVER, CORRECT PAN NUMBERS WERE LATER AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED COMPUTATION ON 16.9.2010/22/3/2011. IN THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT. FURTHER, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, PENALTY IS N OT TO BE IMPOSED IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE RESPECTIVE SECTI ONS LEVYING PENALTY UNDER THE ACT. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD A BONAFIDE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE AB OVE SAID INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH THOUGH WAS AVAIL ABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVISED COMPUTATION HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER WHICH COMPLETE INFORMATION OF PAN NUMBERS OF DEDUCTEES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT C OMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272B OF THE ACT. 9. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T HUS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH MARCH, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5