Inderjeet Poultry Farm, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 569/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7051 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.569 & 570/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 INDERJIT POULTRY FARM, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER(TDS), VPO AURANGABAD, PANCHKULA. YAMUNANAGAR. PAN: RTKI00554B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 15.3.2013 RELATING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272B OF INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ITO(TDS)FOR IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.10000/- U/S 272B OF THE IA,1961. 2. THE LEARNED C1T (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PURSUING THAT DEFAULT OF PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER EXISTS EVEN AFTER REVIS ION OF TDS RETURN BY ASSESSEE ON 21.12.2012 WITH CONFIRMIN G THE SAME EITHER FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR FROM THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED C1T (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT PROPE RLY APPRAISING VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS QUOTED BY THE APPELLA NT. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AFTER RECEIVING THE PAN FRO M THE 2 DEDUCTEES REVISED HIS RETURN ON 21.12.2012 WHICH CL EARLY SHOWN BONAFIDE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT. 3. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE F ACTS IN ITA NO.569/CHD/14 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN T HE CASE. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS REL ATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX IN FO RM NO.26Q FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 ON 03.05.2008 AND FOR FINANC IAL YEAR 2008- 09 ON 27.04.2009. FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 OUT OF 2 TAX DEDUCTEES, PAN NUMBER OF 1 TAX DEDUCTEES WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID/MISSING. FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 OUT OF 4 TAX DEDUCTEES PAN NUMBERS OF 2 TAX DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND MISSING/I NVALID. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE CORRECTION STATEMENT BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT AND LEVIED PENALTY UN DER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/- FOR EACH OF THE YEAR. 6. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT IT HAD FILED CORRECTION STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE PARA 5.11 HAD GIVEN A FINDING THAT ALL THE CORRECTI ON STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EACH OF THE QUARTERS WERE INCOMPLETE AND THERE WAS STILL DEFAULT IN FURNISHING OF THE PAN NU MBERS OF THE DEDUCTEES. THE CIT (APPEALS), THEREFORE, UPHELD T HE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF TH E RATIO LAID DOWN BY CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE BRA NCH MANAGER, 3 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. ITO(TDS), PANCHKULA I N ITA NOS.853 TO 855/CHD/2012 ORDER DATED 28.2.2013. 7. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US POIN TED OUT THAT IT HAD FURNISHED CORRECTION STATEMENT AND AFTER THE SAID CORRECTION STATEMENT THERE IS NO DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE PAN NUMBERS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 8. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CORRECTION STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN FILED TILL THE PASSING OF TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELAT ION TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS EE HAD FURNISHED E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT RELATING TO FIN ANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS DEFAULT IN QUOTING OF THE PAN NUMBER OF THE DEDUCTEES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNI SH THE CORRECT PAN NUMBERS OF DEDUCTEES TOTALING 1 TAX DEDUCTEE FO R FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2 TAX DEDUCTEES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD CORRECTED ALL THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE TAX DEDUCTEES RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 A ND 2008-09, HOWEVER THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE A S NO PROOF WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND CLAIMS THAT I T HAD FURNISHED CORRECTION STATEMENT BEFORE THE PASSING OF ORDER OF CIT(A), WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF AND LEVY OF PENALT Y CONFIRM. 4 10. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED CORRECT PAN NUMBERS OF ALL THE TAX DEDUCTEES, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT BUT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CORRECT THE PAN NUM BERS OF EVEN ONE DEDUCTEE, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN ALL F AIRNESS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE CORRECTION STATEMENT FILED. IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTI ON 272B OF THE ACT FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09, ONE QUAR TER EACH. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN CORRECTING ANY O NE PAN NUMBER OF ANY OF THE TAX DEDUCTEES THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LI ABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/ - FOR EACH OF THE QUARTERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE T HE ISSUE IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS. 569 & 570/CHD/2014 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH