Ashok Kumar Arun Kumar Goel, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 386/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1569 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 386 TO 390/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ASHOK KUMAR ARUN KUMAR GOEL, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TD S), SAHARANPUR ROAD, YAMUNA NAGAR. PANCHKULA. PAN: RTKA02342E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : DR.AMAR VEER SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OFF ALL THE APPEALS FILE D BY THE SAME ASSESSEE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL ALL DA TED 3.3.2014 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, CHALLENGIN G THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. 2. IT IS STATED THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE SAME IN ALL THE YEARS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE F ACTS ARE TAKEN FROM ITA NO.386/CHD/2015 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSA L OF ALL THE APPEALS. 2 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER SUB- SECTION (5B) OF SECTION 139A OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCT OR IS REQUIRED TO SPECIFY THE PANS OF DEDUCTEES IN THE QU ARTERLY TDS RETURN FILED ON THE SYSTEM. IN CASE OF FAILURE T O GIVE THE CORRECT PAN NUMBER, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF T HE ACT MAY BE LEVIED. ON PROCESSING OF THE E-TDS QUARTER LY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX IN FORM NO.26Q FOR TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 FILED ON 15.7.2008, IT WAS NOTICED THA T IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139A OF THE ACT, PAN DETAILS OF 4 OUT OF 12 DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID/MISSING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE , INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT A ND VIDE SEPARATE ORDER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- UN DER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENA LTY ORDER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND RAISED MANY PL EAS INCLUDING THE STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE REVISED T HE RETURN AND HAS CORRECTED THE DEFECTS, IF ANY. THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGA RH A BENCH IN ITA NOS.564 TO 567/CHD/2014 IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ASHOK KUMAR ARUN KUMAR GOEL AND IN IT A NO.568/CHD/2014 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR GOEL VID E ORDER DATED 10..9.2014 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE FOR FILING THE CORRECTION STATEMENT ON THE MATTER IN ISSUE. THE FINDINGS IN THIS ORDER IN PARAS 10 TO 13 ARE REPRODUCED AS U NDER : 3 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPE AL IS IN RELATION TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND I N THE SAID STATEMENT FOR QUARTER NO.3, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT THERE WAS DEFAULT IN QUOTING OF THE PAN NUMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE C ORRECT PAN NUMBERS OF DEDUCTEES TOTALING 3 TAX DEDUCTEES I N QUARTER NO.3 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD CORRECTED ALL THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE TAX DEDUCTEES RELATING TO QUARTER NO.3 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 , HOWEVER THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE A S NO PROOF WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND CLA IMS THAT IT HAD FURNISHED CORRECTION STATEMENT BEFORE T HE PASSING OF ORDER OF CIT(A), WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKE N COGNIZANCE OF AND LEVY OF PENALTY CONFIRM. 11. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED CORRECT PAN NUMBERS OF ALL THE TAX DEDUCT EES, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT BUT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO CORRECT THE PAN NUMBERS OF EVEN ONE DEDUC TEE, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U NDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN A LL FAIRNESS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE CORRECTION STAT EMENT FILED. IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN N O PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT F OR QUARTER NO.3 OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. IN CASE T HE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN CORRECTING ANY ONE PAN NUMBER OF ANY OF THE TAX DEDUCTEES THEN THE ASSESSE E IS LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/- FOR EACH OF THE QUARTERS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 4 12. THE FACTS & ISSUE IN ITA NOS. 565 TO 568/CHD/20 14 ARE IDENTICAL TO FACTS IN ITA NO. 564/CHD/2014 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA NOS. 564 TO 568/CHD/2014 WOULD APPL Y MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO ITA NOS. 565 TO 568/CHD/2014 AL SO. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS. 564 TO 568/CHD/2014 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL AN D INDERJEET POULTRY FARM IN ITA NO.728/CHD/2014 AND I TA NO.729/CHD/2014, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE SAME OR DER IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR ARUN KUMAR GOEL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.3.2015 ADOPTED THE SAME VIEW. COPIES OF BOTH T HE ORDERS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 6. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ASHOK KUMAR ARUN KUMAR G OEL (SUPRA) AND ANIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA), W E SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING FILING OF THE CORRECTION STATEMENT AND SHALL RE-DECIDE THE MA TER ACCORDINGLY BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS IS DIRECTED IN THE C ASE OF ASHOK KUMAR ARUN KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA). 7. BOTH THE PARTIES STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME IN THE REMAINING APPEALS FROM ITA NO.387 TO 390/CHD/2015. THE ORDER IN ITA NO.386/CHD/2015 IS, THEREFORE, FOLLOWE D IN THESE 5 CASES ALSO AND SHALL APPLY SAME ORDER TO THE REMAIN ING APPEALS AS WELL. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 RD AUGUST, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH