Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Chandigarh V. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

ITA 55/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9788 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNDER SINGH
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Application of stay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 54 TO 56/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011 -12) CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS VS. THE J.C.I.T.(TDS), ORGANIZATION, SECTOR 30-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: PTLC10887C AND STAY APPLICATION NOS.9 TO 11/CHD/2015 IN ITA NOS. 54 TO 56/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011 -12) CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS VS. THE J.C.I.T.(TDS), ORGANIZATION, SECTOR 30-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: PTLC10887C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNDER SINGH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 31.10.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12, CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 272A(2(K) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. THE ISSUE IS SAME IN ALL THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED THROUGH THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATE D ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEALS ALSO FILED STAY APPLICATIONS IN ALL THE YEARS, WHICH WER E ALSO FIXED FOR HEARING ALONGWITH THE APPEALS. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE THE APPEALS ARE HEARD AND HAVE TO BE DECIDED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE STAY APPLICATIONS ON MERITS. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIB LE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS PR) HAD FILED QUARTER LY TDS RETURNS IN FORM NO.26Q AFTER THE RESPECTIVE DUE DAT ES IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2009- 10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 (FINANCIAL YEARS 2008-09, 2 009-10 AND 2010-11). IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC ES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REPLIES IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TH REE YEARS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE AMOU NT OF PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 272A(2(K) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AT RS.6,46,300/-, RS.4,96,600/- AND RS.3,47,400/-, WHI CH WERE RESTRICTED TO RS.4,84,945/-, 3,73,264/- AND RS.3,27,534/- RESPECTIVELY FOR ALL THE ABOVE ASSESS MENT 3 YEARS, EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURC E IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE QUARTERS. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDERS BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FI NDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 5 TO 6 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. 'ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM ON OR AFTER THE 1ST D AY OF APRIL, 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ANY PERSON BEING AN EMPLOYER RE FERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 SHALL, AFTER PAYING THE TAX DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRI BED TIME, PREPARE SUCH STATEMENTS FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBE D AND DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SUCH STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PART ICULARS AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED.' 5.1. THE RELEVANT RULE IS RULE 31A(2) OF INCOME TAX RULE S, 1962, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'STATEMENTS REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (1) FOR THE QUA RTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING WITH THE DATE SPECIFIED IN COLUMN (2) O F THE TABLE BELOW SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRY IN COLUMN (3) OF THE SAID TABLE: 1. DATE OF ENDING OF THE QUARTER - 30TH JUNE-- DUE DAT E OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 15TH JULY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2. DATE OF ENDING OF THE QUARTER - 30TH SEPTEMBER - DU E DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 15TH OCTOBER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 4 3. DATE OF ENDING OF THE QUARTER - 31ST DECEMBER - DUE DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 15TH JANUARY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 4. DATE OF ENDING OF THE QUARTER - 31ST MARCH - DUE DA TE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 15TH MAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY F OLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTION IS MADE.' 5.2 THUS, E-TDS RETURNS HAVE TO BE FILED IN FOR M NO. 26Q BY THE DUE DATES MENTIONED IN RULE 31A(2). THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT FILED TDS RETURNS BY RESPECTIVE DUE DATES AS PRESCRI BED BY THE RULE. 5.3 THE PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY H AS BEEN IMPOSED NAMELY SECTION 272A(2)(K) IN TERMS STATES THA T IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A COPY OF THE STATEMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3)OF SECTION 200 WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TI ME, HE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF ONE HUNDRED RUPEES FOR E VERY DAY, DURING WHICH THE DEFAULT CONTINUES. A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE QUESTION OF DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE CAN NEVER OCCUR IF THE SPECIFIED STATEMENT IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO B E ATTRIBUTED THAT MUCH INTELLIGENCE THAT THE PENALTY FOR DELAY IN SUB MISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED EVEN WHEN THERE COULD HAVE BE EN NO LOSS OF REVENUE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION TO PLEAD THAT SINCE THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE, NO P ENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED WOULD GO NOT ONLY AGAINST THE INTENTION OF TH E LEGISLATURE BUT WOULD RENDER THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF LAW OTIOSE. IT H AS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE STATE COMPELS THE SUBJECTS TO OBEY IT S LAWS AT THE PAIN OF PENALTY FOR ITS VIOLATION. EVERY VIOLATION OF LAW DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER BUT STILL T HERE ARE PENAL PROVISIONS TO ENFORCE THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. IF THERE ARE NO PENAL CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFAULT, THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO H OW ELSE THE LAW IS TO BE ENFORCED. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN TDS STATEMENTS IS UTILIZED BY THE DEPA RTMENT IN ENSURING PROPER ASSESSMENT OF TAX IN THE CASE OF TH E PERSONS FROM WHOSE INCOME TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HENCE. WHILE NON-FILING OF STATEMENT BY THE DEDUCTOR MAY NOT ENTAI L A LOSS TO REVENUE IN DEDUCTOR'S CASE, IT MAY RESULT IN LOSS O F REVENUE IN THE CASE OF DEDUCTEES AND SO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. C OUNSEL THAT IN 5 THE ABSENCE OF LOSS TO REVENUE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED HAS TO BE CANCELLED IS REJECTED. 5.4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPO N THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STE EL LTD. (83 1TR 26), BUT IN THAT DECISION, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAD MERRILY HELD THAT PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY ACTE D DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW. THE JUDGMENT PERTAINED TO SALES TAX MATTER AND THE PARTY WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT IT WAS NOT A D EALER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ENTIRELY DISTINGUISHABLE AND CANNOT BE APP LIED TO THE INSTANT CASE. 5.5 THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NO MATER IAL HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT DELIBERATELY DEFIED THE PROVISIONS OF LAW . THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HOLD WATER SINCE THE APPE LLANT HAS TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE FOR APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERI AL TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT DELIBERATELY DEFIED THE PROVISIONS OF T HE LAW. 5.6 THE PR WAS SUPPOSED TO MANDATORILY FILE TDS RE TURNS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AS-PROVIDED IN RULE 31A(2). AS T HE PR HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE PR HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT FILING THE TDS RETURNS WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD. T HE PENALTIES U/S 272A(2)(K) HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PR IN ALL THE THREE FINANCIAL YEARS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD . GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN ALL THE THREE APPEA LS ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE D ISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE WITH 6 REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY, ALSO REFERRED TO THE REP LY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (PB-14), IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT THE TDS AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED AND PAID TO THE GOVERNM ENT DEPARTMENT AND WHENEVER IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE TDS RETURNS HAVE TO BE FILED, THE PRESCRIBED RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND IT IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILUR E TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. THE STATE OF ORISSA, 83 ITR 26 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY ACTED DELIBE RATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAM PAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & O THERS, 118 ITR 326, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS LAW. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., AHMEDABAD BE NCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. LOK PRAKASHAN LTD., AHMEDABAD AND THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S ROYAL METAL PRINTERS PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (TDS) A ND THE COPIES OF THE SAME ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDERS, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THE DETAILS OF DUE DATE 7 OF FILING OF THE TDS RETURNS AND THE DATE OF FILING OF THE TDS RETURNS AND THE DELAY IN FILING OF TDS RETURNS. I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE DELAY IN FILING OF RETU RNS IN PRESCRIBED FORM FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS WAS OF 64 63 DAYS, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SIMILARLY THE DELAY IN F ILING THE PRESCRIBED RETURNS FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS IS OF 4966 DAYS AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS IN PRESCRIBED FORM FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTER S IS OF 3474 DAYS. THUS THERE IS HUGE AND ABNORMAL DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURNS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IN THE REPL Y BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWA RE OF THE PROVISION OF FILING OF THE TDS RETURNS AND AS AND W HEN IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF PR, THE RETURNS IN THE PRESCR IBED FORM HAVE BEEN FILED. SECTION 200(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN HIS FINDINGS. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE ENTIRE SECTIO N 200 HERE IN THIS ORDER FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SECTION 200 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READS AS UNDER : 200. (1) ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM IN ACCORDANC E WITH [THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL PAY WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE SUM SO DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT O F THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DIRECTS. (2). ANY PERSON BEING AN EMPLOYER, REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 SHALL PAY, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED T IME, THE TAX TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOAR D DIRECTS. (3) ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVIS IONS OF THIS CHAPTER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ANY PERSON BEING AN EMPLOYER REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 SHAL L, AFTER PAYING THE TAX 8 DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WI THIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. [PREPARE SUCH STATEMENTS FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED] AND DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVE RED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PERSON AUTHORI SED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SUCH STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AND VERI FIED IN SUCH MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AND WITHI N SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 8. SECTION 200 IS INSERTED IN CHAPTER-XVII OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH COLLECTION AND REC OVERY OF TAX AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR DEDUCTI ON OF THE TAX AT SOURCE. SECTION 200 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM IN ACCO RDANCE WITH CHAPTER-XVII SHALL PAY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED T IME, THE SUM SO DEDUCTED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DIRECTS. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 200 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT SIMILARLY PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON BEING EMPLO YER, REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT SHALL PAY, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE TAX TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR AS THE BOARD DI RECTS. THE ASSESSEE (PR) IN THE REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT TDS FOR ALL THE ABOVE YEARS HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AND PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT HE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 200(1) AND (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE (PR) HAS, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE TO CO MPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IT IS CLAIMED DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ALSO RELIED UPON 9 THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON THE PROPOS ITION THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNO WS THE LAW. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AFTER THO UGHT AND CLEARLY FALSE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO COMPL Y WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 20 0 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEF THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF THE SA ME SECTION 200 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUB-SECTION ( 3) OF SECTION 200 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR FILING OF THE STATEMENT AS PRESCRIBED IN LAW AFTER DEDUCTI ON OF THE TDS. THIS PROVISION WAS INSERTED INTO THE ACT W.E .F. 1.4.2005 AND THE APPEALS UNDER REFERENCE RELATE TO SEVERAL YEARS THEREAFTER. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW FOR FILING THE TDS RETURNS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IT IS ALSO UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS , THEREFORE, REJECTED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSES SEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF M/S HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD.(SUPRA), IN WHI CH IT WAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW. HOW EVER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS LATER DECISION IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PRO CESSORS & OOTHERS, 306 ITR 277 HELD THAT THE PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. IT WAS HELD AS U NDER : 10 THE EXPLANATIONS APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF S TRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GI VING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING THE RETURN . T HE OBJECT BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) RE AD WITH THE EXPLANATIONS INDICATES THAT THE SECTION HA S BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION IS A CI VIL LIABILITY. WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C. 9. THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES TH AT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR ASS ESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISIONS IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE C AUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. THIS IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION PRO VIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS MERELY CONTENDED T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THEREFORE, NO RETURN OF TDS WAS FILED. IT COULD N OT BE TREATED AS ANY CAUSE WHAT TO SAY OF REASONABLE CAUS E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED, THEN IT WOULD GIVE AN OPEN LI CENCE TO ALL THE CONCERNED PERSONS TO FLOUT THE PROVISIONS O F INCOME TAX LAWS IN THE GARB OF DENYING THE RELEVANT PROVIS IONS OF 11 LAW. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE EXIS TED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT ON CONSIDERATIO N THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION OF DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE CAN NEVER OCCUR IF THE SPECIFIED ST ATEMENT IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IF THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS NO LOSS TO T HE REVENUE, NO PENALTY WOULD BE IMPOSED ON ANY PERSON AND IT WOULD GO AGAINST THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE A ND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS WOULD ALSO GO REDUNDANT. WE M AY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FAC TS FILED WITH APPEAL STATED THAT GRIEVANCE LETTER WAS RECEIV ED FROM SHRI ASHOK GULATI BY THE DEPARTMENT ALLEGING THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE BUT THAT WAS NO T REFLECTED IN THE 26AS STATEMENT. IT WOULD, THEREFO RE, PROVES THAT IN CASE OF NON-FILING OF THE TDS RETURNS, THE PERSONS ON WHOSE BEHALF TAXES HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED WOULD ALSO SU FFER FOR NO FAULT OF THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT GET BENEFIT OF TAXES AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS, LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS WOULD HAVE SUFFERE D FOR ACTS AND OMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING TH E TDS RETURNS WITHIN THE TIME. 12. THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF WORLD WIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICE LTD. VS. JCIT(TDS), CHANDIGARH IN ITA NOS.20 TO 23/CHD/2 015 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.4.2015 DISMISSED ALL THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE FINDING NO REASONABLE CAUSE IN FAVOUR OF T HE 12 ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 4 TO 7 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE AT THE PENALTY STAGE SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DELAY IN FILI NG OF THE REQUIRED RETURNS WAS DUE TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEIR ACCOUNTANT WAS HAVING FAMILY PROBLEM AND COULD NOT DEVOTE PROPER TIME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS, HOWEVER, NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTIES UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) BY REFERRING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE REQUIRED TCS AND TDS RETURNS BY RESPECTIVE DUE DATES AS PRESCRIBED BY RU LES. IT WAS NOTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE NO LOSS IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, THE PENALTIES ARE NOT LEVIABLE, IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE IT WOULD GO AGAINST THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN NOT FILING THE RETURNS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THERE FORE, DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI VI JAY KUMAR DOGRA, WHO CLAIMED TO BE LOOKING AFTER THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFFID AVIT, IT WAS STATED THAT HE WAS HAVING AILING FATHER SHRI NANAK CHAND, SO WENT INTO DEPRESSION AFTER THE DEAT H OF HIS MOTHER ON 28.1.2008. FURTHER DUE TO HEALTH PROBLEM IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 HE COULD NOT ATTE ND HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES REGULARLY. THEREFORE, THERE W AS DELAY IN FILING THE TCS/TDS RETURNS. ONE CERTIFICA TE FROM GOPAL HOSPITAL IS FILED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT IT WAS A REASONABL E CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 13 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THE AFFIDAVIT IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL AND NO AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE FACTS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PLEADED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL. THE MOTHER OF THE DEPONENT SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DOGRA DIED IN JANUARY, 2008, WHICH HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED I N THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE WAS HAVING HEALTH PROBLEMS IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BUT THE CERTIFICATE DO NOT SHOW I F HE WAS NOT FIT TO RESUME THE DUTIES. NO DETAILS OF P ROPER ILLNESS OR DIAGNOSIS PROVIDED TO THE DEPONENT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CERTIFICATE. NO SERIAL NUMBER O N THE LETTER HEAD IS PROVIDED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAIL IN SUCH CERTIFICATE AND FURTHER WHEN NO SUCH CERTIFICA TE OR AFFIDAVIT WERE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW W OULD CLEARLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS AN AFTER THOUGHT STORY MADE UP BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW BY NOT FILING THE TCS AND TDS RETURNS ON TIME. THE ASSESSEE MERELY CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AT THE PENALTY STAGE THAT DUE TO FAMILY PROBLEM OF ACCOUNTANT HE COULD NOT DEVOTE PROPER TIME. HOWEV ER, NO SUCH FAMILY PROBLEM HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AT ALL AN D THE ILLNESS OF THE ACCOUNTANT WAS NEVER PLEADED BEF ORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN IF THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILU RE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. DURING THE COUR SE OF ARGUMENTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ACCOUNTANT WAS PAID FULL SALARY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WOULD SHOW THAT WHEN H E WAS PAID FULL SALARY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF NOT DEVOTING TIME BY THE ACCOUNTANT FOR FILING THE RETURNS WITHIN THE PRESCR IBED 14 TIME. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO P ROVE IF THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO CO MPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CAUSE TO EXPLAIN DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS WITHIN THE T IME PRESCRIBED IN LAW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN LEVYING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTIES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE HAVE NO MERITS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 13. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE OTHE R DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GIVEN PREFERENCE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. 14. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROV E IF THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPL Y WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CAUSE TO EXPLAIN DELAY IN FILING OF THE TDS RETURNS WITHIN T HE TIME PRESCRIBED IN LAW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN LEVYING AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTIES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO MERITS AND ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 16. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO MADE 15 STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE STAY APPLICATIONS, THEREFORE, TH E STAY APPLICATIONS STANDS DISPOSED OFF IN TERMS OF THE AP PEALS DECIDED ABOVE AND HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ON DISPOSA L OF THE APPEALS. 17. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND THE STAY APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY DISP OSED OFF. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH