Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1533 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
9 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
31-12-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
13-03-2015
Judgement Text
1 ITA NOS. 81 TO 84/NAG/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. SR.NO. I.T.A. NO. ASSTT. YEAR. 1. 81/NAG/2015 2009 - 10. 2. 82/NAG/2015 2010 - 11 3. 83/NAG/2015 2011 - 12 4. 84/NAG/2015 2012 - 13 THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER (TDS), SENIOR POST MASTER, WARD - 2(2), AMRAVATI. VS. HEAD POST OFFICE, PARATWADA, TQ. ACHALPUR, DIST. AMRAVATI. TAN NGPHO2581F. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. RAVI KUMAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CHARUDUTT A MARATHE & SHRI MAHESH LADDHA. DATE OF HEARING : 28 - 12 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 ST DEC., 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THESE FOUR APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR DATED 10 - 12 - 2014. IN ALL THE YEARS IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS WERE AS UNDER : I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CITCA) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.7 , 21,700/ - , RS.1,SO,201/ - , RS . 1,32 , 329/ - , RS.86 , 900/ - FOR A . YRS. 2009 - 10,2010 - 11,2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 RESPECTIVELY AGGREGATE AMOUNT RS. 10,91,130/ - ) LEVIED U/S 272A(2)CK) OF THE ACT? II) WHETHER ON T HE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED 2 ITA NOS. 81 TO 84/NAG/2015 CITCA) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MERE TECHNICAL DEFAULT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE DEFAULT IS COMMITTED FOR 16 QUARTERS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEFAULT IS DELIBERATE RENDERING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. INAPPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE DEDUCTOR ? III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE DEFAUL T COMMITTED BY THE DEDUCTOR HAS RESU L TED IN UNDUE HARDSHIP AND HARASSMENT TO THE DEDUCTEES? IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE DEDUCTOR FAILED TO PROVE ANY REASONABL E CAUSE FOR THE ADMITTED DEFAULT EXCEPT MERELY STATING THAT THE DEFAULT IS TECHNICAL, IGNORING THE EXTANT PROVISIONS OF LAW WHERE THERE IS NO SUCH DEFAULT AS TECHNICAL DEFAULT? V) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CITCA) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IGNORING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR IN APPEAL NO. 281 TO 284/NAG/2012 DTD. 10/09/2014 IN THE CASE OF JAGDAMBA REALTORS P. LTD. VS. ADDL . CIT TDS, RANGE - I, NAGPUR WHICH APPROVED THE UPHOLDIN G OF PENALTY U/S 272A(2)CK) BY THE LEARNED CITCA), NAGPUR? 2. AN ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 272A(2)(K) DATED 31 - 10 - 2013 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 (LEAD YEAR) AND THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED DEFAULT IN SUBMITTING THE TDS RETURNS LATE. WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY VIDE ABOVE ORDER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THRO UGH A CHART THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE TDS RETURN OF EACH QUARTER AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE RETURNS WERE ACTUALLY FILED. ON THE BASIS OF THOSE FACTS THE AO HAS CALCULATED THE NUMBER OF DAYS ON WHICH THE DELAY HAD HAPPENED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPE A LS) HAS DISCUSSED FEW CASE LAWS AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT WHEN THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT THE TDS WAS DEPOSITED BY THE DEDUCTOR BUT DUE TO CERTAIN TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES TH E RETURNS COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED. H ENCE MERELY BECAUSE OF THE SAID TECHNICAL REASON HELD THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON WERE AS UNDER : I) BRANCH MANAGER (TDS), UCO BANK VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) [201 3] 35 TAXMANN.COM 45 (CUTTACK - TRIB.) 3 ITA NOS. 81 TO 84/NAG/2015 II) BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) [2014 ] 41 TASXMANN.CO, 268 (CUTTACK - TRIB.) III) COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) RANGE, [2012] 21 TAXMANN.COM 22 (CHD.). IV) THE MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE - 3, MATHURA [2012] 26 TAXMANN.CO, 347 (AGRA). 3. NOW BEFORE US AN ANOTHER DECISION OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH HAS ALSO BEEN FURNISHED PRONOUNCE D IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR VS. ACIT 61 TAXMANN.COM 27, ORDER DATED 9 TH DEC., 2014 WHEREIN THE ADMITTED FACT WAS THAT THE TDS AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED ON TIME AND PAID TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE REQUISIT E RETURN WAS ALSO FILED LATER ON. FOR THE SAID DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF RETURN AT BRANCH LEVEL. THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT MANDA TORY OR AUTOMATIC BUT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON H . M . T . LTD. 274 ITR 544 (P&H) IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. HENCE MERELY BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH, PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DECISION AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE DELETION OF PENALTY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILE D BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF DEC., 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 31 ST DEC ., 2015. 4 ITA NOS. 81 TO 84/NAG/2015 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SENIOR POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE, PARATWADA, TQ. ACHALPUR, DIST. AMRAVATI. 2. I.T.O., (TDS), WARD - 2(2), AMRAVATI. . 3. C.I.T. - NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE
