Manager, Union Bank of India, Mathura V. Addl. CIT, Mathura

ITA 707/AGR/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6914 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M M AGARWAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 707/AGRA/2008 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, VS. ADDL. C.I.T., R ANGE-3, 32-B, MAYUR VIHAR, MATHURA. MATHURA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI M.M. AGARWAL, C.A. FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, JR. D.R. ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2008 OF THE CIT(A), AGRA CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASSE SSING OFFICER U/S. 272A(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT FOR HIS FAILURE TO FURNISH QUARTERLY E-TDS RETURNS AS PRESCRIBED U/200(3). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH QUARTERLY E-TDS RETURNS WITHIN TIME PRES CRIBED. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE U/S.272A(2) OF THE ACT ON 18.04.2007 AND ITS REMIND ER ON 07.08.2007, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT THE REQUISITE E-TDS RETURNS WERE NOT FILED EVEN UPTO THE TIME OF PASSING THE PENALTY ORD ER. HE, THEREFORE, IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS.1,08,000/- ON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 272A(2) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, WHICH STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), AS THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY I N FILING THE SAID RETURNS OR FOR NOT FILING THE SAME UPTO THE DATE OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT QUARTERLY E-FILING SYSTEM WAS INTRODUCED FIRST TIME AND THE A SSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TAX IN TIME, DEPOSITED THE SAME IN TIME BUT FAILED TO FILE QUARTERLY RETURN IN TIME DUE TO NEW SYSTEM OF E-FILING OF QUARTERLY RETURNS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO ASSIGN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HI S FAILURE IN FILING THE QUARTERLY E-FILING RETURNS. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT HE FAILED TO APPE AR AND SHOW ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HIS FAILURE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND HAVING CONSIDER ED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BO TH THE PARTIES, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO TH E CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT HE MAY PUT UP HIS CASE ON MERITS BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE , THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.05.11. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MAY, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY