GE(I) R&D, Chandigarh V. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

ITA 182/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9830 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 10

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.182 & 183/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S GARRISON ENGINEER(I)R&D, VS. THE JCIT (TDS), MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO.PTLGI4273A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PANKAJ GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/06/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2014 OF CIT(A) 2. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 182/ CHD/2015 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 1,69,50 0/- 2 UNDER SECTION 272(2)(K) R.W.S 274 OF THE ACT WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APP RECIATE THE REASONABLE CAUSE AS PLEADED IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DCIT (TDS) CHANDIGARH INFORMED THE OFFICE OF JCIT(T DS) THAT PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR FILING RETURNS HAS FAILED TO FILE Q UARTERLY RETURNS IN THIS CASE. THE DELAY WAS NOTED AS UNDER:- F.Y. QUARTER DUE DATE OF FILING OF TDS RETURN DATE OF FILING OF TDS RETURN DELAYS IN FILING TDS RETURN 2009- 10 1 ST 03.02.2011 15.07.2009 569 2 ND 03.02.2011 15.10.2009 477 3 RD 03.02.2011 15.01.2010 385 4 TH 04.02.2011 15.05.2010 264 4. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.4.2013 WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEDUC TED THE TAX WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND TAX WAS DESPOILED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AGAI N WITHIN TIME ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE QUARTERLY RETURN COULD NOT BE FILED BECAUSE PAN NUMBERS OF THE CONTRACTORS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE. THOU GH THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE PAN NUMBERS BUT THE SAME WERE NOT UPDATED IN THE SYSTEM . SINCE IT HAD BECOME MANDATORY TO QUOTE PAN NUMBERS, SO THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THESE SUBMISSIONS DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME AND ULTIMATELY LEVIED A PENALTY @ RS. 100 PER DAY F OR DEFAULT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION BY NOT ING THAT TDS RETURNS FOR 2 ND , 3 3 RD AND 4 TH QUARTERS WERE FILED ON 15.10.2009, 15.01.2010 AND 15.05.2010 RESPECTIVELY. SIMILARLY, RETURNS FOR FINANCIAL YEA R 2010-11, WERE FILED ON 4.4.2011, 8.2.2011, 8.2.2011 AND 27.2.2011 RESPECTIVELY BY WH ICH TIME THE PAN NOS. DATA WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, CONTENT ION WAS REJECTED AND ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D WITH REFERENCE TO THE CHARTS GIVEN FOR DELAY IN FILING POINTED OUT THAT A SSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY WRITING DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IN THE COLUMN MEANT FOR DUE DATE OF RETURN E.G. FOR FIRST QUARTER HE HAS SHOWN THE DUE DATE AS 3.2.2011 AND DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS 15.7.2009 WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE . IF THAT WAS TRUE THEN RETURN IS FILED WELL WITHIN THE DUE DATE, THEN NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE AND THE MISTAKE INS TEAD OF BEING READ PROPERLY BY THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AGAINST THE ASSESSE E. HE AGAIN REITERATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AS WELL AS PAID THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE TIME AND QUARTERLY RETURN WERE FIELD LATE BECAUSE ASSESSEE D ID NOT HAVE THE PAN NUMBERS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AND AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE PE NALTY WAS LEVIED U/S 272 A WHICH IS ALSO COVERED U/S 273B WHICH MEANS THAT IF ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE THEN NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CASE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) THAT SINCE PAN NUMBERS OF CONTRACTORS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE, THE RETURN WAS FILED LATE. HOWEVER, THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WILL WITHIN TIME AND HAS BEEN DEP OSITED WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED FOR THE S AME. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILI NG THE RETURN LATE AND PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED. THEREFORE, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 4 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 183/CHD/2015 10. THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHICH WE HAVE AD JUDICATED HEREIN ABOVE IN THE ABOVE NOTED PARAGRAPHS. FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DEC IDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.06.2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. S OOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19 TH JUNE, 2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR