Sagar Laxmi Ship Breakers, Bhavnagar V. The Income tax Officer,(TDS)-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 2571/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0806 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Residential status; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2571/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-2011 SAGAR LAXMI SHIP BREAKERS OPP: MAHENDRA TRANSPORT LATI BAZAR, KHARGATE BHAVNAGAR 364 001. PAN : AATFS 2950 A VS ITO (TDS)-4 AHMEDABAD. ./ ITA.NO.2572/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 PANCHVATI SHIP BREAKERS OPP: MAHENDRA TRANSPORT LATI BAZAR, KHARGATE BHAVNAGAR 364 001. PAN : AAEFP 3353 P VS ITO (TDS)-4 AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISH SOLANKI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 /08/2016 $%/ O R D E R PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES AGAINST ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 13.9.2012 ON THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN THE ASSTT.YE AR 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF PANCHVATI SHIP BREAKERS, AND ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF SAGAR LAXMI SHIP BREAKERS. ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 2 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES IS THAT THE LD.C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,90,030/- IN THE CA SE OF PANCHVATI SHIP BREAKERS AND RS.12,41,980/- IN THE CASE OF SAGAR LA XMI SHIP BREAKERS. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE LD.AO UNDER SECTION 201/ 201(1A). THEY CONTAINED RS.12,18,410/- PLUS INTEREST OF RS.3,71,6 20/- IN THE CASE OF PANCHVATI SHIP BREAKERS AND RS.9,78,570/- PLUS INTE REST OF RS.2,63,410/- IN THE CASE OF SAGAR LAXMI SHIP BREAKERS. 3. BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSES, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE REFERENCE ABOUT SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 206C. (1) EVERY PERSON, BEING A SELLER SHALL, AT T HE TIME OF DEBITING OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE BUYER TO THE ACCOUNT OF T HE BUYER OR AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE SAID BUYER IN CASH OR BY THE ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WH ICHEVER IS EARLIER, COLLECT FROM THE BUYER OF ANY GOODS OF THE NATURE S PECIFIED IN COLUMN (2) OF THE TABLE BELOW, A SUM EQUAL TO THE PERCENTA GE, SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRY IN COLUMN (3) OF THE SAID TABLE , OF SUCH AMOUNT AS INCOME-TAX: [TABLE SL. NO. NATURE OF GOODS PERCENTAGE (1) (2) (3) (I) ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND TENDU LEAVES ONE PER CENT (II) TENDU LEAVES FIVE PER CENT (III) TIMBER OBTAINED UNDER A FOREST LEASE TWO AND ONE- HALF PER CENT (IV) TIMBER OBTAINED BY ANY MODE OTHER THAN UNDER A FOREST LEASE TWO AND ONE- HALF PER CENT (V) ANY OTHER FOREST PRODUCE NOT BEING TIMBER OR TENDU LEAVES TWO AND ONE- HALF PER CENT ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 3 (VI) SCRAP ONE PER CENT] [(1A) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SEC TION (1), NO COLLECTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE IN THE CASE OF A BU YER, WHO IS RESIDENT IN INDIA, IF SUCH BUYER FURNISHES TO THE PERSON RESPON SIBLE FOR COLLECTING TAX, A DECLARATION IN WRITING IN DUPLICATE IN THE P RESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER TO THE EFFECT THA T THE GOODS REFERRED TO IN COLUMN (2) OF THE AFORESAID TABLE ARE TO BE UTIL ISED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING OR PRODUCING ARTICLES OR THINGS [OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF GENERATION OF POWER] AND NOT FOR TR ADING PURPOSES. EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION (A) BUYER' MEANS A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE, GOODS OF THE NATURE SPECI FIED IN THE TABLE IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY SUCH GOODS BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE, (I) A PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANY, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT , A STATE GOVERNMENT, AND AN EMBASSY, A HIGH COMMISSION, LEGA TION, COMMISSION, CONSULATE AND THE TRADE REPRESENTATION, OF A FOREIGN STATE AND A CLUB; OR (II) A BUYER IN THE RETAIL SALE OF SUCH GOODS PURCH ASED BY HIM FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION; [(B) 'SCRAP' MEANS WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFA CTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH BECAUSE OF BREAKAGE, CUTTING UP, WEAR AND OTHE R REASONS; (C) 'SELLER' MEANS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, A STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY OR CORPORATION OR AUTHORITY ESTABLI SHED BY OR UNDER A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT, OR ANY COMPANY OR FIRM OR CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ALSO INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL O R A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY WHOSE TOTAL SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 44AB DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FINANC IAL YEAR IN WHICH THE GOODS OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THE TABLE IN S UB-SECTION (1) ARE SOLD.] 4. BRIEF FACTS, WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE ASSESS MENT YEARS OF THE ASSESSEES, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF SHIP BREAKING. ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 4 THEY HAVE SOLD SCRAP. AS PER SECTION 206C, WHILE E FFECTING THE SALE OF SCRAP, THE ASSESSEES WERE REQUIRED TO DEDUCT AT 1% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. SUB- SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 206 CONTEMPLATES THAT IN CA SE OF PURCHASER/BUYER IS RESIDENT OF INDIA, AND HE UNDERTAKES TO USE SUCH SC RAP FOR MANUFACTURING, THEN NO TDS WOULD REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE , SAGAR LAXMI SHIP BREAKING MADE SALE TO 21 ENTITIES WHO HAVE GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING THAT SCRAP WOULD BE USED FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSE. THE ASSES SEE TOOK UNDERTAKING IN FORM NO.27 CONTEMPLATED FOR THIS PURPOSE. COPIES O F ALL THESE FORMS ARE BEING PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE ME. THE LIST OF PURCHASERS WHO HAVE GIVEN FORM NO.27C IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.27 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE, PANCHAVATI SHIP BREAKERS HAS ALSO MADE S ALES TO THE CONCERNED, WHO HAVE GIVEN FORM NO.27C. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT FORM NO.27C PERIODICALLY. SINCE THEY HAVE FAILED TO DEPOSIT FORMS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS A SSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT FOR THE ALLEGED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. IN OTHER WORDS, TH E ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN TREATED IN DEFAULT FOR THE 1% OF THE TAX, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE MADE BY THEM TO THE BUYERS WHO WOULD USE THE SCRAP IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE AO IN THIS WAY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.12,18,410/- IN THE CASE OF PANCHVATI SHIP BREAKE RS. HE CALCULATED THE INTEREST OF RS.3,71,620/- AND RAISED A DEMAND OF RS .15,90,030/- UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) OF THE ACT. IN SIMILAR MANNER, A DEMAN D OF RS.12,41,980/- HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE CASE OF SAGAR LAXMI SHIP BREAKER S WHICH CONTAINED RS.9,78,570/- TOWARDS QUANTUM AND RS.2,63,410/- FOR INTEREST. 5. DISSATISFIED WITH THE WORKING, THE ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BUT THE APPELLANT DID NOT BR ING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE ME, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A TECHNICAL AND VENIAL BREACH. THE ASSESSEES HAVE AL READY COLLECTED FORM NO.27C, AND THEREFORE, THEY WERE NOT UNDER OBLIGATI ON TO DEDUCT TAX. THE ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 5 LD.AO HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT . IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. BHAGWAT WIRE INDUSTRIES PASSED IN ITA NOS.3161 TO 3 168/AHD/2014. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 3.9.2015. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THER E IS NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW TH EY FAILED TO SUBMIT THE FORMS. THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY I N THE CASE OF THESE PURCHASERS, BY THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, AND TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY TREATED IN DEFAULT. 7. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED LIST OF BUYERS. IT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF ALL THE FORM NO.27C WHICH WERE COLLECTED FROM TH E BUYERS. THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS CLAIM, BECAUSE, HE HAS NOT MADE CROSS- VERIFICATION. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AO TH AT THESE FORMS WERE NOT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME WHEN SALES WE RE MADE, RATHER, THESE WERE COLLECTED AFTER INITIATION OF INQUIRY AT THE END OF THE AO. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LAPSE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONFINED TO NON -SUBMISSION OF THESE FORMS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSES, THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THEY HAVE COLLECTED FORMS, BUT SOMEHOW DUE TO BONA FIDE MISTAKE, THOSE FORMS COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT WELL IN TIME. ALMOST IDENTICAL SITUATION HAS ARISEN BEFORE THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF BHAGWAT WIRE INDUSTRIES (SUPRA). THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PA RA-7 TO 8 READS AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION TO THE EFFECT THAT FORM NO.27C COULD NOT BE FILED DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE REMAINS UNC ONTROVERTED. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT FILING OF THESE FORMS WITH THE LD. CIT (TDS) IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND IGNORANCE OF THIS BINDING STATUTORY OBLIGATION, OR CARELESSNESS IN COMPLYING WITH THE SAME, IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE. IN THIS REGARD, I MAY ONLY REFER TO THE FOL LOWING OBSERVATIONS OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SUDHERSHAN A UTO & GENERAL FINANCE LTD. VS. CIT (60 ITD 177) :- ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 6 24. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IGNORANCE O F LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE IS ALSO NOT VALID. THE LEARNED D.R. WAS CONF RONTED WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. V. STATE OF UP [1979] 118 ITR 326. HE COUL D NOT GIVE ANY VALID EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT EVERY BODY IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE LAW AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE HAS, INTER ALIA, HELD AS UNDE R AT PAGE 339 : 'MOREOVER, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW. IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT EVERY ONE IS PRESUME D TO KNOW THE LAW, BUT THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT : THERE IS NO SUCH MAXIM KNOWN TO THE LAW. OVER A HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS AGO, MAULA, J. POINTED OUT IN MARTINDALE V. FALKNER [1846] 2 CB 706 : THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION IN THIS COUNTRY THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW : IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO COMM ON SENSE AND REASON IF IT WERE SO. SCRUTTON, L.J. ALSO ONCE SAID : IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ALL THE STATUTORY LAW, AND NOT VERY POSSIBLE TO KNOW ALL TH E COMMON LAW. BUT IT WAS LORD ATKIN WHO, AS IN SO MANY OTHER SPHERES, PU T THE POINT IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT WHEN HE SAID IN EVANS V. BARTLAM [1937] AC 473 : ....... THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY ONE KNOWS THE LAW. THERE IS THE RULE THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW D OES NOT EXCUSE, A MAXIM OF VERY DIFFERENT SCOPE AND APPLICATION.' THE IGNOR ANCE OF THE LAW MAY OR MAY NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID EXCUSE FOR JUSTIFYING NO NCOMPLIANCE WITH A PROVISION OF STATUTE. IT WILL DEPEND UPON THE NATUR E OF THE DEFAULT. IF IT IS MERELY A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH, NO PENALTY WOU LD BE IMPOSABLE BECAUSE THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER ANY STATUTORY PROVISION N ECESSARILY IMPLIES EXISTENCE OF SOME GUILTY INTENTION ON THE PART OF T HE DEFAULTER OR THE OFFENDER. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OR AB SENCE OF ANY GUILTY INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, ONE WILL HAV E TO CONSIDER ALL THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WHETHER BY COM MITTING ANY DEFAULT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH A STATUTORY PROVISION OF LAW, A N ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED ANY BENEFIT, GAIN OR ADVANTAGE OR WHETHER BY SUCH A DEFAULT OR NON- COMPLIANCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFRAUDED THE REVENUE O R HAS CAUSED ANY LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE FACTORS WHICH WI LL HAVE TO BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED BEFORE CONSIDERING THE FACT AS TO WHETHE R THE IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CONSULTANT CAN CONSTIT UTE A VALID EXCUSE OR A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 273B I N RELATION TO THE ALLEGED DEFAULT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 272A(2)(F). IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY GAIN, BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE BY DELAY ED SUBMISSION OF FORM NO. 15H. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS . THE GUILTY INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY ABSENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS RELATING TO ALL THOSE 49 DEPOSITOR S IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 27A WHICH WAS DULY FURNISHED WITHIN THE TIME PR ESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE REVENUE HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELAYED THE FURNISHI NG OF THE COPY OF THEIR DECLARATION IN FORM NO. 15H WITH ANY ULTERIOR MOTIV E SUCH AS TO KEEP THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THEIR DEPOSIT, THEIR INTERE ST INCOME SECRET FROM THE DEPARTMENT OR THAT THOSE 49 DEPOSITORS IN COLLUSION WITH THE ASSESSEE EVADED PAYMENT OF TAX ON THEIR INTEREST INCOME. THE CIT HA S NOT EVEN EXAMINED FEW OF THOSE 49 DEPOSITORS TO BRING ANY SUCH MATERI AL ON RECORD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAILS RELATING TO NAME ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 7 AND FULL ADDRESSES OF THOSE PERSONS TO WHOM INTERES T WAS CREDITED/PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE AMOUNT OF I NTEREST CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94 AND THE D ATE OF CREDIT OR PAYMENT AS REQUIRED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 27A. THE DEP ARTMENT COULD MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AGAINST THOSE DEPOSITORS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADEQUATE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE FORM NO. 27A. THE DETAILS AND FACTS STATED IN FORM NO. 27A VIRTUALLY CONTAINS ALL THE DETAILS WHICH AR E CONTAINED IN FORM NO. 15H. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED SUCH A FORM NO. 27A FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WITHIN THE TIME PRESC RIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT RULE AND THE PROVISION OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THI S FACT PROVES TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY GUILTY INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 25. IT WILL BE WORTHWHILE TO MAKE A USEFUL REFERENC E TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEE L LTD. (SUPRA) : 'AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEE DING, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBL IGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CO NDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DI SREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCR ETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSI DERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY I S PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNIC AL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BR EACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.' THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. (SUPRA) IS FULLY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 26. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO P LACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RAFIQS CASE ( SUPRA) AND HAD QUOTED THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS FROM THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT IN HIS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT: '. . . A PARTY SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR INACTION, DELI BERATE OMISSION OR MISDEMEANOUR OF HIS COUNSEL WHEN HE HAS SELECTED HI S COUNSEL, BRIEFED HIM AND PAID HIS FEE AND WAS ASSURED THAT H IS INTEREST WILL BE LOOKED AFTER. . .' THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS IN WHICH IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT BONA FIDE OMISSIONS ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL WOULD CON STITUTE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE JUSTIFYING CANCELLATION OF PEN ALTY UNDER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. ITA NO.2571 AND 2572/AHD/2012 8 27. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, DISCUSSIONS AND THE ABOVE-REFERRED JUDGMENTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E INNOCENT OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF D ECLARATION IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 15H DUE TO BONA FIDE IGNORANCE ON THEIR PA RT AND DUE TO BONA FIDE IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THEIR TAX CONSULTANT AS AD MITTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT WOULD ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 272A(2)(F) WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 27 3B. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE LAPSE IS ONLY A TE CHNICAL BREACH OF LAW AND IT IS NOT RESULTED IN ANY LOSS OF REVENUE. BEARING IN MIND THIS FACT, THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I UPHOLD THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 8. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE, AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TH E AO NOWHERE DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FORMS WERE COLLECTED AT THE TIME WHEN THE SALES WERE MADE. THE ONLY LAPSE AT END OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NON-SUBMISSION OF THOSE FORMS. THIS LAPSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY WAY OF A MISTAKE WHICH TO MY MIND SHOULD NOT WORTH OF TREATI NG THE ASSESSEES-IN- DEFAULT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF DIVIS ION BENCH OF THE ITAT CITED SUPRA, I ALLOW BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AND DELETE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/08/2016