The Branch Manager, Jagadhari V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 853/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0681 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 853 TO 855/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) THE BRANCH MANAGER, VS. THE INCOME TAX O FFICER(TDS), ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, PANCHKULA. AMBALA ROAD, JAGADHARI. PAN: AAACO0191M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMARJEET SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL ALL DATED 30.05.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 272B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN ALL T HE THREE APPEALS READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD.ITO, TDS IS WRONG IN LEVYING PENALT Y U/S 272A OF RS.10000/-. 3. ALL THE THREE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSES SEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED O FF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.853/CHD/20 12 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX IN 2 FORM NO.26Q RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 ON 1 4..6.2008 IN WHICH PAN NUMBERS OF 45 DEDUCTEES OUT OF TOTAL OF 260 TAX DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID/MISSING. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE CORRECTION STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS. 10,000/-. 5. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD FILED CORRECTION STATEMENT ON 3.1.2011 AND HAD ALSO ISSUED LETTERS TO THE PARTIES FOR SUBMITTING THE PAN NUMBERS. HOWEVE R, THE CIT (APPEALS) NOTED THAT ONLY COPIES OF FOUR LETTERS AS AGAINST 45 MISSING/INVALID PAN NUMBERS WERE ENCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE AND FURTHER OUT OF THE SAID FOUR, ONE WAS UNSIGNED AND WITHOUT ADDRESS. FURTHER IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT ON THE SAI D LETTERS THE DATES MENTIONED WAS 22.12.2010 FROM 22.11.2010 BY OVER-WR ITING, WHEREAS THE FIRST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 9.12.2010. THE CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE HOW LETTER COULD BE MADE ON 22.11.2010 W HERE FIRST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 9.12.2010. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. 6. IN ITA NO.854/CHD/2012 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED E- TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX IN FORM NO.26Q FOR FI NANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 ON 15.7.2008 IN WHICH PAN NUMBERS OF 78 TAX DEDUCTE ES OUT OF 485 TAX DEDUCTEES WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID/MISSING. THUS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS. 10,000/-. 7. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE WAS IN LINE WITH THE EARLIER YEAR THAT IT HAD ISSUED LETTERS AN D THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD FOUND SIMILAR DEFAULTS AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE. THE 3 ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ON RECORD THE EVIDEN CE OF HAVING SENT THE LETTERS TO THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTEES AND HENCE THE C IT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IN ITA NO.855/CHD/2012 THE DEFAULT WAS IN RESPEC T OF E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX FILED IN FO RM NO.26Q RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 ON 17.6.2009 IN RESPECT OF 3 8 TAX DEDUCTEES OUT OF 178 TAX DEDUCTEES, WHERE THE PAN NUMBERS WERE FOUND TO BE INVALID/MISSING. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE FILED CORRECTION STATEMENT ON 26.3.2012 BUT THE SAME WAS INCOMPLETE AND FURTHE R NO EVIDENCE OF ISSUE/DISPATCH/SERVICE OF THE LETTERS TO THE DEDUCT EES WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE DEFAULT WAS IN RESPE CT OF REMAINING 17 PAN NUMBERS. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. 9. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STR ESSED THAT THE INFORMATION OF PAN NUMBERS OF MAJORITY OF DEDUCTEES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THERE WAS NO MERIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. 10. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN FURNISHING THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE DEDUCTEES IN RELATION TO THE E-TDS RETURNS FILE D QUARTER-WISE BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 AN D 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED PAN NUMBERS OF VARIOUS DEDUC TEES BUT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH PAN NUMBERS IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE DE DUCTEES. THE YEAR- WISE DEFAULT OF NON-FURNISHING OF PAN NUMBERS BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS AS UNDER: 4 YEAR-WISE INVALID/MISSING PAN NO. A.Y.2008-09/26Q/14.6.2008 45 A.Y.2009-10/26Q/15.7.2008 78 A.Y.2009-10/26Q/17.6.2009 17 12. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE CORRECTION STATE MENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ALSO. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE CIT (APPEALS) LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OF ISSUE/DISPATCH OF THE LETTERS TO DEDUCT EES AND HENCE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD CO MPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS TO THE EXTENT IT WAS POSSIBLE AT HIS END . THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272B(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDE THAT IF A PERSON FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 139A, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF RS.10, 000/- . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WE ARE IN AGREEMEN T WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT. THUS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5