Estate Officer, Ambala City V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 495/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 49521514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SOOD
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 139; 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 494 & 495/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 &2008-09) ESTATE OFFICER, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) , HUDA, SCO 7-B, PANCHKULA. AMBALA CITY. PAN: RTKE00902G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K.SOOD RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 09.02.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO.494/CHD/2012 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.80,000/-IMPOSED U/S 272B FOR BEING CASUAL WITH LITTLE RESPECT/INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT WHEREAS THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE NON MENTIONING OF PAN OF EIGHT DEDUCTEES IN THE TDS RETURNS AND ITS SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE ACT AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED 2. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR RELIEF. 2 3. THE GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO.495/CHD/2012 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/-IMPOSED U/S 272B FOR BEING CASUAL WITH LITTLE RESPECT/INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT WHEREAS THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE INADVERTENT MENTIONING OF WRONG PAN AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OF ONE DEDUCTEE IN THE ORIGINAL TDS RETURN AND ITS SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION AFTER COLLECTING CORRECT PAN FROM THE DEDUCTEE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE ACT AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED 2. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR RELIEF. 4. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSES SEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FILED THE E-TDS QUARTERLY S TATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 IN FORM NO. 24Q ON 1.9.2005. IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FILED THE E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEME NT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 IN FORM NO. 26Q ON 11.3.2008. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THE SCRUTINY OF THE SAID E-TDS RETURNS NOTED THAT F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE PAN NUMBERS OF EIGHT DEDUCTEES AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ONE DEDUCTEE WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED AT RS.80,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND RS.10,0 00 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 3 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD FILED ITS QUARTERLY TDS RETURN AND DEPOSITED TAXES AND HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE REQUISI TE DETAILS. THE CORRECTION STATEMENTS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE FILED ON 23.9.2010. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY U /S 272B OF THE ACT. 7. 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 CASES, THE ASSESSEE HAD E- FILED ITS QUARTERLY E- TDS RETURNS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2005-06 AND 200 7-08 ON 1.9.2005 AND 11.3.2008 RESPECTIVELY. IN THE SAID E-TDS RETURNS, IT HAS REFLECTED INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTEES. HOWEVER, PAN N UMBERS OF EIGHT DEDUCTEES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ONE DEDUC TEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND T O BE INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATIO N BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, CORRECT PAN NUMBERS WERE LATER A VAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED COMPUTA TION ON 23.9.2010 IN BOTH THE CASES. IN THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXIGIB LE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT. FURTHER, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, PENALTY IS NOT TO BE IMPOSED IN CASES WHER E THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS LEVYING PENALTY UNDER THE A CT. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AD A BONAFIDE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE ABOVE SAID INFORMATION BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH THOUGH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND TH E REVISED COMPUTATION HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UND ER WHICH COMPLETE 4 INFORMATION OF PAN NUMBERS OF DEDUCTEES HAVE BEEN F URNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272B OF THE ACT AND ACCORDIN GLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272B OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH