BHURMAL BAXIRAM JAIN, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT TDS, THANE

ITA 4805/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1193 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4805 /M/2016 (AY 2009 - 2010) ITA NO. 4806 /M/2016 (AY 2010 - 2011) ITA NO. 4807 /M/2016 (AY 2011 - 2012 ) SHRI BHURMAL BAXIRAM JAIN, SHOP NO.10, VISHWADEEP BLDG, STATION ROAD, NEAR CANARA BANK, DOMBIVALI 421201. / VS. ADDL CIT - TDS, QURASHI MENTION, GHOKHALE ROAD, NAVPADA, THANE. ./ PAN : ACRPJ9682G ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ITA NO.4808/M/2016 (AY 2009 - 2010) ITA NO.4809/M/2016 (AY 2010 - 2011) ITA NO.4810/M/2016 (AY 2011 - 2012) SHRI RAJENDRA BHIKAMCHAND JAIN, 16, LILY APARTMENT, AGYARI LANE, TEMBHI NAKA, THANE - 400601. / VS. ADDL CIT - TDS, QURASHI MENTION, GHOKHALE ROAD, NAVPADA, THANE. ./ PAN : AAPPJ3404J ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.A. KULKARNI / REVENUE BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 .04.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE SIX APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. 2 2. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHURMAL BAXIRAM JAIN VIDE ITA NOS.4805 TO 4807/M/2016 FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE TABLE GIVEN IN PARA 3 (PAGE 2) OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING QUARTERLY STATEMENTS OF TDS U/S 200(3) READ WITH RULE 31A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. DEL AY FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 VARIED FROM 648 DAYS TO 983 DAYS; FOR THE AY 2010 - 11, THE DELAY VARIED FROM 283 DAYS TO 618 DAYS AND FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 THE DELAY IS 361 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TDS AS PER THE PROCEDURE AND THE SAME WAS REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT IN TIME. HOWEVER, THERE IS A DELAY IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED STATEMENTS OF THE SAID TDS TO THE TDS OFFICIALS. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID DELAY, ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NONE TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE CIT (A) ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ACCORDING TO THE SAME, THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYED IN FURNISHING OF THE STATEMENT S AND LACK OF RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THESE MATTERS SHOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY FOR A LL THE THREE QUARTERS IN QUESTION. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 11 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE RELEVANT LINES FROM THE SAID PARA READS AS UNDER: - 11...... THEREFORE, THE REASONABLE CAUSE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE RELIANCE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE CASE OF HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ROYAL METAL PRINTERS PVT LTD (SUPRA), DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING TDS RETURNS. AS OBSERVED BY THE AO DUE TO DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURNS BY THE DEDUCTORS, THE DEDUCTEES HAVE TO SUFFER A LOT AS THEY DO NOT GET CREDIT OF TDS TILL THE TIME TDS STATEMENTS ARE UPLOADED BY THE DEDUCTORS. I N VIEW OF THE DETAILED FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE IT ACT IN THIS CASE AMOUNTING TO RS. 46,350/ - AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE REASONS GIV EN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND AS REASONABLE CAUSE. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL REASONS OR EVIDENCE FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF HIS 3 ARGUMENTS WHICH IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR REVERSA L OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). CONSIDERING THE SAME, I AM OF THE OPINION, THE DECISION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ON THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASES. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONA BLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE THREE APPEALS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJENDRA BHIKAMCHAND JAIN VIDE ITA NOS. 4808 TO 4810/M/2016 FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12. 8. THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE INSTANT APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ONES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHURMAL BAXIRAM JAIN (SUPRA). THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A), THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THE SAME AS IN THE ABOVE ADJUDICATED CASE OF SHRI BHURMAL BAXIRAM JAIN (SUPRA). CONSIDERING THE COMMONALITY OF THE ISSUES AS WEL L AS THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE LD REPRESENTATIVES, MY DECISION GIVEN THEREIN SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE INSTANT APPEALS TOO. ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION TAKEN THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 10. CONCLUSIVELY, ALL THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH A PRIL, 2017. SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 12.04.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 4 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI