M/s Ganesha Mal Megh Raj, Ambala City V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 393/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60859 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: H K JINDAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.393 &394/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2008-09) M/S GANESH MAL MEGH RAJ, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER(TDS), SHOP NO.43, PANCHKULA. NEW GRAIN MARKET, AMBALA CITY. PAN: AADFG8316L AND ITA NO.395/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : & 2008-09) M/S JEWELLERS NN AGGARWAL, VS. THE INCOME TAX OF FICER(TDS), SHARAFA BAZAR, PANCHKULA. AMBALA CITY. PAN: AAAFN7359M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.K.JINDAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER/S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS), DATED 09.02.2012 AND 06.02.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272B O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.40000/- (ITA NO/393/CHD/2012), RS.30,000/-(ITA NO.394/CHD/2012) ANDRS.10,000/-(ITA NO.395/CHD/2012) BY ITO TDS. 2 3. DIFFERENT ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AND ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE FACTS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND R EFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.393/CHD/2012 FOR ADJUDI CATING THE ISSUE. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FILED THE E-TDS QUARTERLY S TATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2005-06 ON 1.9.2005. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON THE SCRUTINY OF THE SAID E-TDS RETURN NOTED THAT THE PA N NUMBERS OF FOUR DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS NO RESPON SE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT WAS L EVIED AT RS. 40,000/-. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD FILED ITS QUARTERLY TDS RETURN FOR THE FIRST TIME AND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISM OF CORRECTING THE INFORMAT ION IN THE SAID E- TDS RETURN. THE CORRECTION STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 14.1.2012, 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.394/CHD/2012 THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 07-08 ON 13.10.2007 AND PAN NUMBERS OF 3 DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND TO BE INV ALID. 7. IN THE FACTS OF ITA NO.395/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 ONE DEDUCTEE WAS FOUND TO BE INVA LID. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FILED CORRECTION STATEMENT ON 7.3.2 011. 3 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 YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 ON 1.9.2005/13.10.2007/14.1.2008 RESPECTIVELY. IN TH E SAID TDS RETURNS, IT HAS REFLECTED INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN DED UCTEES. HOWEVER, PAN NUMBERS OF FOUR DEDUCTEES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE S WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQU ISITE INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, CORRECT PAN NUMBER S WERE LATER AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED REVISED COMPUTATION ON 14.1.2012/28.12.2010/ 7.3.2011. 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 . 9. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, PENALTY IS NOT TO BE IMPOSED IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLIS HED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS LEVYING PENALTY UNDER THE ACT. IN THE TOTALITY OF F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD A BONAFIDE CASE FOR N OT FILING THE ABOVE SAID INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH THOU GH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVISED COMPUTATION HAD A LSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER WHICH COMPLETE INFORMATION OF PAN NU MBERS OF DEDUCTEES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR N OT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE UN DER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S 272B OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELE TE THE PENALTY LEVIED 4 U/S 272B OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DAY OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24 TH MAY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH