Esvee Metal Industries, Jagadhari V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 572/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80861 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI

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 NO.571 /CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 AND ITA NOS.572 TO 575/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ESVEE METAL INDUSTRIES, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER(TDS), COURT ROAD, PANCHKULA. JAGADHARI. PAN: RTKE00866F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER AND ONE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL S), KARNAL EACH DATED 15.3.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-0 7 & 2009-10 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272B OF INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL THE APPEALS A RE IDENTICAL. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN IT A NO.571/CHD/2014 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. HOWEVER, GROUNDS OF APPEAL I N ITA NO.571/CHD/2014 READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ORDER OF ITO (TDS) FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.10000/- U/S 272B OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE LEARNED C1T (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PURSUING THAT DEFAULT OF PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER EXISTS EVEN AFTER REVISION OF TDS RE TURN BY ASSESSEE ON 28.01.2013 WITH CONFIRMING 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 APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED C1T (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSI DERING OUR ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. L FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 08.02.2013 WHICH READ S AS UNDER.- THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AFTER RECEIVING THE PAN FROM THE DEDUCTEES REVISED HIS RETURN ON 28.01.2013 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWN BONAFIDE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS RELA TING TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX IN FO RM 26Q FOR QUARTER NOS.1 RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WA S FILED ON 29.8.2005. FOR THE SAID QUARTERED, OUT OF 6 TAX D EDUCTEES, PAN NUMBERS OF 2 TAX DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID /MISSING. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE CORRECTION STATEMEN T BEFORE 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 QUARTERS. 3 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, 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 RESPECT OF QUARTER NO.1 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. 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 ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND IN THE SAID STATEMENT FOR QUARTER NO.1, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS DEFAULT IN QUOTING OF THE PAN NUMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE C ORRECT PAN NUMBERS OF DEDUCTEES TOTALING 2 IN SAID QUARTER. T HE ASSESSEE 4 CLAIMED THAT IT HAD CORRECTED THE PAN NUMBERS OF TH E TAX DEDUCTEES RELATING TO QUARTER NO.1 FOR FINANCIAL YE AR 2005-06, 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. 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 QUARTER NO.1 OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN CORRECTING ANY ONE PAN NU MBER OF ANY OF THE TAX DEDUCTEES THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO LE VY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/- FOR EA CH OF THE QUARTERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE T HE ISSUE IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 11. THE FACTS & ISSUE IN ITA NOS. 572 TO 575/CHD/20 14 ARE IDENTICAL TO FACTS IN ITA NO. 571/CHD/2014 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA NOS. 571 TO 575/CHD/2014 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS-MU TANDIS TO ITA NOS. 572 TO 575/CHD/2014 ALSO. 5 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10 TH SEPTEMBER, , 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH