SHREERANG MERCANTILE (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT (TDS) 3, MUMBAI

ITA 7495/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2236 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SATHYA MOORTHYDR
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMENDRA M SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law
• Section: 273B; 194C

Judgement Text

1 , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -EBENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C. N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA/7495, 4599 & 4600/MUM/2014 /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 SHREERANG MERCANTILE (I) PVT. LTD. 501, SHREERANG HOUSE, 5TH FLOOR NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI-400 020. PAN:AADCS 0954 M VS. ADDL.CIT, (TDS)-3, ROOM NO.1001 SMT. K.G. MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG., CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI N. SATHYA MOORTHY-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DHARMENDRA M. SHAH / DATE OF HEARING: 19.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.07.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DATED 8.10.2014 AND 19.5.201 4, OF THE CIT(A)-14 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIO NED THREE YEARS.ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS ABOUT LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S.272A(2)(K)OF THE ACT,FOR FILING QUARTERLY RETURNS IN FORM NUMBER 24Q/ 26Q BE LATEDLY.SO,WE ARE ADJUDICA - TING ALL THE APPEALS BY SINGLE ORDER. ITA/7495/MUM/2014-09-10 2. ON EXAMINATION OF RECORDS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT FILE THE TDS RETURNS ON DUE DATES.THE DELAYS IN SUBMISSION O F TDS RETURN FOR THE QUARTERS OF FY 2008-09 WERE COMPILED BY THE AO AS UNDER : F.Y. 2008-09 QUARTER NO. OF DAYS DELAY TDS AMOUNT 24Q-1 ST 406 2,07,000 24Q-2 ND 490 99,000 24-Q-3 RD 368 99,000 24-Q-4 TH 421 1,67,800 24Q-1 ST 399 2,61,014 24Q-2 N D 307 5,63,132 24-Q-3 RD 215 4,30,907 24-Q-4 TH 71 12,67,097 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 2 THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE A SKING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S.272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. IN ITS REPLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITS ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT WELL VERSED WITH THE COMPUTERIZATION, AND OPERATION OF TDS SOFTWARE AS W ELL AS UPLOADING OF VARIOUS QUARTERLY TDS (SYSTEMS)/NSDL,THAT IT WAS DEPENDENT ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES FOR THE WORK,THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COPE UP WITH THE FAST ADVANCEMENT OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY.THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMEN T OF ESTABLISHING THE REASONABLE CAUSE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 72A(2)(K) OF THE ACT,THAT ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO BE IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF I TS STATUTORY OBLIGATION UNDER THE ACT, THAT THE FAILURE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OR LACK OF ADVANCEMENT WITH COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR NOT FILI NG TDS RETURNS.FINALLY,HE IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS.1,68,500/- AND RS.99,200/- FOR FILING THE RETURN LATE IN FORM NO.24Q AND FORM NO.26Q RESPECTIVELY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).BEFORE HER,THE ASSE SSEE MADE THE SAME ARGUMENTS THAT WERE ADVANCED BEFORE THE AO.THE FAA, REFERRING TO SECTION 200(3) AND 272(2)(K)OF THE ACT,HELD THAT ASSESSEES WERE REQUIRED TO FILE TDS RETURN/STATEMENTS IN PRESCRIBED FORM AND IN PRESCRI BED MANNER BY THE DUE DATE, THAT TIMELY FILING OF TDS STATEMENT WAS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY.WITH REGARD TO THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE THE FAA OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WERE DISTIN - GUISHABLE ON FACTS.FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE LACK OF COMPETENCY OF ACCOUNTANT COULD NOT CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING TDS RETURNS BELATEDLY AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT TDS DEDUCTED WAS PAID IN TIME BY THE AS SESSEE THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN, THAT IT WAS A TECHNICAL OFFEN CE,THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THERE 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 3 WAS NO DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN/ STATEMENTS.HE RE FERRED TO CASES OF H.M.T. LTD. -TRACTORS DIVISION(274 ITR 544);STATE BANK OF PATIA LA (277 ITR 315); HARSIDDH CONSTRCTIONS PVT.LTD.(244ITR417);SCHELL INTL(278 IT R630)AND MAHAVIR AGENCY (58ITD 396).THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE FAA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. FIRST OF ALL WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE AMENDMEN T DEALING WITH VARIOUS PENAL PROVISIONS.BY THE TAXATION LAWS(AMENDMENT AND MISCE LLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT,1986,SECTION 273B WAS INTRODUCED IN THE ACT.THI S SECTION PROVIDES THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED UNDER CERTAIN SECTION IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILUR E.IT IS SAID THAT BY REASON OF THE RULE OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED IN SECTION 273B OF TH E ACT,IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS DEPENDENT ON THE PROOF THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE.IN THE MATTER OF CAPITAL ELECTRONICS(261 ITR 4),THE HONBL E CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS ELABORATED THE CONCEPT FURTHER.FROM THE SAID JUDGME NT IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE OMISSION OF THE PARTICULAR PHRASE FROM THE SUBSTANT IVE LAW(SECTIONS 271/272)OF THE ACT AND INCORPORATION THEREOF IN THE PROCEDURAL LAW (SECTION 273),BEARS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO MAKE THE PROVISION OF VARIOUS SECTIONS COERCIVE INSTEAD OF PENAL.IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED T O REMOVE THE SCOPE OF ANY CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO THE CHARACTERISTICS AND NA TURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,THAT THE WORD 'MAY' H AD BEEN USED ONLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROCEDURAL LAW ENABLING THE ASSESSE E TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS REASON-ABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE,THAT UNLESS IT WA S PROVED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE,THERE WAS NO ESCAP E FROM THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY,THAT IT IS ONLY WHEN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR F AILURE WAS PROVED PENALTY COULD BE AVOIDED,THAT A COMBINED READING OF THE SEC TIONS 271/272 DID NOT ADMIT OF ANY THEORY OF ABSOLUTE DEFAULT IN ORDER TO ATTRA CT THE MISCHIEF OF THOSE SECTIONS. 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 4 5.1. THE CONCEPT THAT ALL PENALTIES IN CIVIL MATTERS ASS UME QUASI-CRIMINAL CHARACTER HAS OF LATE UNDERGONE A CHANGE. IN FACT, THE QUESTION IS DEPENDENT ON THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROCEEDINGS. A DISTINCTIO N HAS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHET HER THE PROCEEDING IS A QUASI-CRIMINAL ONE OR SIMPLY A COERCIVE METHOD TO S ECURE COMPLIANCE OF A PARTICULAR PROVISION. IF A PENALTY PROVIDED APPEARS TO BE A PROVISION FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE BY INTRODUCING COERCIVE PROCESS IT IS SO METHING IMPLICATING A PENAL INTEREST. IF INSTEAD OF PENALTY INTEREST WAS PAYABL E, IN THAT EVENT, IT WOULD NOT ASSUME THE CHARACTERISTIC OF QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEED INGS. THEREFORE, THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING HAS TO BE EXAMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE CONTEXT UNDER WHICH THE LIABILITY IS CREATED.IF THE LIABILITY REVEALS A CIV IL LIABILITY ONLY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE THROUGH A COERCIVE MANNER, THEN IT IS DE FINITELY A CIVIL LIABILITY WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL IMPLICATION. BUT AS SOON AS CR IMINAL LIABILITY IS IMPOSED BY REASON OF DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE OF A PARTICULAR PRO VISION AND THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF CRIMINALITY INVOLVED IN THE DEFAULT, THE PROCEEDING CAN BE SAID TO BE A QUASI-CRIMINAL ONE.THE PRESENCE OF THE ELEMENT OF C RIMINALITY IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINES THE QUESTION.SOME OF THE BA SIC PRINCIPLES REGARDING LEVY OF PENALTY CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER: I). LEVY OF PENALTIES U/S.271/272 OF THE ACT,IS NOT AUT OMATIC. IN ORDER TO BRING IN APPLICATION OF THOSE SECTIONS IN THE BACKDROP OF TH E OVERRIDING NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE IN SECTION 273B , ABSENCE OF REASONABLE CAUS E, EXISTENCE OF WHICH HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED, IS A SINE QUA NON. BEFORE LEVYING P ENALTY, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY OMISSION OR COM MISSION ON PART OF AN ASSESSEE,THE SAME WAS WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE. THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED A REASONABLE CA USE FOR THE FAILURE. THEREAFTER, THE AO HAS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE OR OTHER PERSON AS REGARDS THE REASON FOR FAILURE, WAS ON AC COUNT OF REASONABLE CAUSE. 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 5 II). THE WORDS REASONABLE CAUSE IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT,MUST NECESSARILY HAVE A RELATION TO THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW WHICH HE HAD FAILED TO COMPL Y WITH.IN OTHER WORDS, REASONABLE CAUSE IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT WOULD M EAN CAUSE WHICH HAS NEXUS TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE R EQUIREMENT OF LAW. III). THE QUESTION OF VENIAL OR TECHNICAL NATURE OF BREAC H WOULD ARISE IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF M AY CONSIDER THAT A PARTICULAR ACT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DONE OR THE ACT REQUIRED TO BE DONE HAS IN FACT BEEN DONE,BUT WHILE DOING SO THE DEFECT OF VENIAL OR TEC HNICAL NATURE HAS OCCURRED. IV). IN THE CASE OF DELAY IN COMPLIANCE, THE CAUSE SHOWN MUST BE FOR THE WHOLE OF THE PERIOD OF THE DELAY AND NOT MERELY FOR A PART T HEREOF. IF THE CAUSE SHOWN IS SUCH AS TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY AS A WHOLE AND CONSTIT UTE A GOOD REASON FOR THE NON- COMPLIANCE, NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIABLE. HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE CAUSE SHOWN IS SUCH AS TO EXPLAIN A PART OF THE DELAY, OR THE CAUSE SHOWN IS ONLY TO MITIGATE THE GRAVITY OF THE NON-COMPLIANCE, SUCH A CAUSE CANNOT BE EXTRAPOLATED AND TREATED AS BEING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE WHOLE OF TH E PERIOD OF THE DELAY IN ITS ENTIRETY. V). PENALTY WILL NOT BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LA WFUL TO DO SO.WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCIS ED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.EVE N IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PE NALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICA L OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FRO M A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRI BED BY THE STATUTE. 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 6 VI). IN THE CASE OF SCHELL INTL (278 ITR630)THE HONBLE COURT ,WHILE DEALING WITH A PENALTY MATTER,STARTED ITS JUDGMENT STATING THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE BUT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THE LAW. 5.2. NOW,WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO SOME OF THE MATTERS D EALING WITH THE ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS OF CAUSE.IN THE CASE OF H.M.T. LTD. -TRACTORS DIVISION(SUPRA),THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO EIGHT CONTRACTORS. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 203 OF THE ACT,R.W. R.31 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962,IT WAS REQUIRED TO ISSUE TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFI CATE IN FORM NO. 16A TO THE SAID PARTIES WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. HOWEVER, T HE SAID FORMS WERE ISSUED LATE.THE ASSESSEE WAS A BRANCH OF A GOVERNMENT OF I NDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES.IT HAD TO ISSUE TAX DEDUCTIO N CERTIFICATES NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO EIGHT CONTRACTORS, BUT ALSO TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF TAX DEDUCTED OUT OF SALARY AS WELL AS INTEREST.THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DEFAULT WAS MERELY TECHNICAL IN NATURE AS THERE WAS NO LOSS OF REVENUE INVOLVED AT ALL AND EVEN THE CONTRACTORS HAD NOT RA ISED ANY GRIEVANCE ABOUT LATE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATES. THIS EXPLANATION DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AO,WHO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.1,03,900/-.THE FAA CANCELLED THE PENALTY BUT THE ORDER WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL.ON APPEAL,THE HONBLE P &H HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: ..THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAD BEEN PAID IN TIME AND THE NECESSARY RETURN IN RESPECT THEREOF WAS DULY FILED IN TIME WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. NO LOSS OF REVENUE HAD OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF LATE ISSUE OF TA X DEDUCTION CERTIFICATES. NONE OF THE CONTRACTORS HAD RAISED ANY GRIEVANCE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE SUPPLY OF THE CERTIFICATES.KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND ESPECI ALLY THAT THE DEFAULT WAS MERELY TECHNICAL OR VENIAL IN NATURE, PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN THE CASE OF HARSIDDH CONSTRCTIONS PVT. LTD.(SUPR A),IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT,WAS DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WELL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THERE WAS NO LOSS OF REVENUE BUT ONLY A FAILURE TO FORWAR D THE CERTIFICATE AND SINCE THE 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 7 TRIBUNAL ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS A BO NA FIDE MISTAKE.UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD T HAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY U/S.272A(2)(G) OF THE ACT. FACTS OF THE MATTER OF SCHELL INTL (SUPRA)WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UP THE PRODUCTION OF THE FILM CALLED SIYASAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1988-89 TO 1992-93. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285B OF TH E ACT,HE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE STATEMENT IN FORM NO. 52A FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE STATEMENT,NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 272A.IN R ESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, HE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS HIS FIRST AND LAST VENTURE WHICH HAD FLOPPED AND DUE TO THE IGNORANCE OF LEGAL FORMALITIES, HE COULD NOT SU BMIT THE STATEMENTS. AFTER HEARING, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY.THE TRIBUNAL SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF PENALTY. ON APPEAL,THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,HE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE STATEMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR,THA T AS SOON AS HE GOT THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE, HE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENTS,THAT NO T AX WAS DUE FROM HIM,THAT THE EXPLANATION APPEARED TO BE REASONABLE,THAT THE TRIB UNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE ORDER OF PENALTY. 5.3 FINALLY,WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE CASE OF SUPER INTENDENT OF POLICE(349 ITR 550)P&H.IN THAT MATTER THE ASSESSEE QUOTED INVA LID PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS FOR 196 DEDUCTEES. THE ERROR WAS DUE TO WRO NG QUOTING OF PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS BY THE DEDUCTEES TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE BY FURNISHING THE CORRECT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS AS SOON AS IT CAME TO ITS NOTICE. THE REVISED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER S AND THE REVISED STATEMENT WERE FILED. THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED IN T IME IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY. HOWEVER,THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S.272 B OF THE ACT.THE FAA DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS SU FFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139A.THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 8 SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE.DECIDING THE APPEAL,THE HONBLE COURT HELD AS UNDER: THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE FINDINGS RECO RDED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL WERE ERRONE OUS IN ANY MANNER. ON APPRECIATION OF THE ENTIRE MATTER, THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CA USE SHOWN WHICH WOULD BE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.THUS, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY TH E REVENUE THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH INACCURATE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS IN FORM 24Q. AFTER CONSIDERING THE,ABOVE WHAT HAS TO SEEN AS TO WHETHER THE REASONS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE TDS RETURNS IN TIME FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION OF REASONABLE CAUSE,AS ENVISAGED BY THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT ONLY DEDUCTED THE TAX BUT HAD ALSO DEPOSITED THE DEDUCTED SUM IN TIME.THUS,DEPART MENT HAD NOT SUFFERED ANY REVENUE LOSS.IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT E FILING OF QUA RTERLY RETURNS WERE INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEREFORE,IF THE STAFF OF THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT CONVERSANT WITH E- FILING OF DOCUMENTS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A REASON ABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING RETRUNS.THE OMISSION FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF T ECHNICAL OR VENIAL NATURE OF INFRIGMENT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING RETURNS LATE. SO, REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. ITA/4599/MUM/2014-(10-11) ITA/4600/MUM/2014-(11-12) 6. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE SAME AS EARLIER YEAR. SO, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THAT YEAR EFFECTIVE GROUNDS FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7495, 4599, 4600/MUM/2014(09-10, 10-11 &11-12) SHREERANG MERCANTILE 9 AS A RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL T HE THREE AY.S STAND ALLOWED. . . . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY,2016. ! 27 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . ' / C.N. PRASAD ) ( #$ / RAJENDRA ) ' % / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 27.07.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.