Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7901 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-03-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
E
Next Hearing Date
20-09-2016
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
12-08-2014
Judgement Text
, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -EBENCH MUMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./5186-88/MUM/2014 , /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 TO 2010-11) M/S. SHAREPRO SERVICES (INDIA) PVT.LTD. 912, RAHEJA CENTRE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL ROAD, NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI-400 021. PAN:AAICS 5500 L VS. DCIT-(TDS)-3(2) MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY: SHRI A.K. NAYAK /ASSESSEE BY: SHRI KIRIT J. SHETH / DATE OF HEARING: 20/03/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.03.2017 PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DATED 06/06/2014 OF THE CIT (A)-14,MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED THREE AY.S. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS COMMON, SO, WE ARE DISPOSING OFF BY A SINGLE COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ALL THE AY.S IS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. 2. ON EXAMINATION OF RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENT IN FORM NUMBER 26Q WITH IN THE TIME SPECIFIED U/S.206/206C OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 37 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED THREE AY.S. AS PER THE AO,THE RETURNS WERE TO BE FILED AT THE END OF THE EVERY QUARTER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) READ WITH RULE 31A OF THE RULES. HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENA LTY U/S.272A(2)(K) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. AS PER THE AO, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ENCLOSING COPIES OF TDS RETURNS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE EXISTED A STATU TORY OBLIGATION TO FILE QUARTERLY RETURNS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT, THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS. HE, THEREFORE, IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.63,344/-,46,608/-AND RS.25,500/-FOR THE AY.S 2008-09,2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).BEFORE HER,WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS WERE FILED STATING THAT CHILD OF THE DIRECTOR WAS MENTALLY RETARDED AND THE DIRECTOR COU LD NOT ABLE TO ATTEND OFFICE WORK TO THE EXTENT IT WAS REQUIRED TO, THAT THE BUSINESS OF COM PANY HAD ALSO SUFFERED FOR THAT REASON. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE,THE FAA HELD THAT LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 5186-5188/M/14(08-09 TO 10-11) M/S. SHAREPRO SERVICES (INDIA)PVT.LTD. 2 ABSOLUTE, THAT NOBODY COULD AVOID THE RESPONSIBILIT Y OF DEPOSIT OF TAX SO DIRECTED AND FILE RETURN ON TIME. SHE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 199, 194,200(3) AND 272 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO MANAGE ITS AFFAIRS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT STATUTORY COMPLIANCES WERE COMPLIED WITH AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT, THAT THE RE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURNS. FINALLY, SHE UPHELD THE PEN ALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BECAUSE US,THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE (AR)CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE TDS RETUR NS LATE,THAT THE SON OF THE DIRECTOR WAS A SPECIAL CHILD, THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEVOTE S UFFICIENT TIME TOWARDS THE BUSINESS, THAT THE BUSINESS HAD VIRTUALLY CLOSED. THE DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 5. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF TDS RETURNS, THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF 402 AND 295 DAYS IN FILING THE SECOND AND FOURTH QUARTERLY RETURNS FOR THE AY.2008- 09,THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE SECOND,THIRD AND FO URTH QUARTERLY RETURNS WAS TO 97, 187 AND 36 DAYS RESPECTIVELY FOR THE AY.2009-10, THAT THERE WA S DELAY OF 84 DAYS, 161 DAYS, 10 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURNS FOR SECOND,THIRD AND FOURTH QUAR TERLY RETURNS FOR THE NEXT AY.THUS,OUT OF THE TWELVE RETURNS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FOUR RETURNS IN TIME.IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.THE ONLY ISSUE T O BE DECIDED IS THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURNS IN TIME WAS REASONABLE OR NOT.BEING A CORPORATE ENTITY IT IS DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGAL RE QUIREMENTS.IF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS PRE-OCCUPIED WITH HIS CHILD,IT HAS TO B E MORE CAREFUL ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR.IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THE FACT THAT DIRECTOR MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE REGULARLY.BY HIRING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,THE ASSESSEE COULD HAV E EASILY HANDLED THE SITUATION.WHAT WAS TO BE DONE WAS FILING OF A RETURN ONLY.IT IS NOT A JOB THAT REQUIRES HIGHER TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION OR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF THE DIRECTOR.IN SHORT,THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING TDS RETURNS BELATEDLY. IN OUR OPINION,THE OR DER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.SO, CONFIRMING THE SAME,WE DECIDE T HE EFFECTIVE GROUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ABOVE MENTIONED THREE AY.S.STAND DISMISSED. !'#$%&' ()*+,-./ . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH , 2017. ,+ 0 - 22 ,1 ,2017 SD/- SD/- ( / AMARJIT SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 22.03.2017. JV.SR.PS. 5186-5188/M/14(08-09 TO 10-11) M/S. SHAREPRO SERVICES (INDIA)PVT.LTD. 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.
