THE ITO (TDS), WARD - 3(2), Vijayawada V. Project Director Indira Kranthi Patham Urban(MEPMA), Khammam

ITA 93/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9969 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SATYANADHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D L NARASIMHA R AOAR
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.91 TO 93/VIZAG/2014 PROJECT DIRECTOR, INDIRA KRANTHI PATHAM, KHAMMAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.91 TO 93/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) ITO (TDS), WARD - 3(2), VIJAYAWADA VS. PROJECT DIRECTOR, INDIRA KRANTHI PATHAM, KHAMMAM [ T AN: HYDP06253C ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. SATYANADHAM, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.L. NARASIMHA RAO,AR / DATE OF HEARING : 10.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.08.2016 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 6.12.2013 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. ITA NOS.91 TO 93/VIZAG/2014 PROJECT DIRECTOR, INDIRA KRANTHI PATHAM, KHAMMAM 2 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT A SURVEY OPERATION U/S 1 33A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED ON 14.11.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS NO TICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED E-TDS QUARTERLY RET URNS/STATEMENTS U/S 203 OF THE ACT IN FORM NOS.24Q & 26Q. THE A.O. HAS SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R EQUESTING FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED QUARTERLY E-TDS STATEMENTS I N FORM NOS.24Q & 26Q. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INITIATE D THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT, LEVIED PENAL TY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT NON -FILING OF E-TDS RETURNS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR INTENTIONAL. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFAULT WAS OCCURRED FIRST TIME DUE TO NON-AVAILABI LITY OF REGULAR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES AND PRAYED FOR DELETI ON OF THE PENALTY. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE DEFAULT WAS UN- INTENTIONAL AND ALSO OCCURRED FIRST TIME. THE RELE VANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: ITA NOS.91 TO 93/VIZAG/2014 PROJECT DIRECTOR, INDIRA KRANTHI PATHAM, KHAMMAM 3 I HAVE SEEN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS MADE UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(K) BESIDES PE RUSING ALL OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE CASE LA WS RELIED UPON. IN ADDITION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, THE LEARNED AR HA S EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON FILING OF TDS RETURNS. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE DEFAULT WAS OCCURRED FOR THE 1 ST TIME DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF REGULAR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES AND BECAUSE OF INADVE RTENCE AND IGNORANCE AND NOT BY ANY NEGLIGENT OR DELIBERATE AT TITUDE. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DEFAULT IS ONLY TECHNICAL IN NATURE AS THE RECIPIENTS ARE EITHER NOT TAXABLE OR FILED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME ADMITTING THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SU BMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE DEFAU LT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-FILING OF E-TDS RETURNS IS UN-INTE NTIONAL AND ALSO OCCURRED FIRST TIME, THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S 272A(2) (K) OF THE ACT IS CANCELLED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE JU DGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEE L LIMITED VS. STATE OR ORISSA REPORTED IN (1972) 83 ITR 26. AFTER CARE FUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE AC T. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.91 TO 93/VIZAG/2014 PROJECT DIRECTOR, INDIRA KRANTHI PATHAM, KHAMMAM 4 5. IN SO FAR OTHER APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE CONCERNED , FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND SINCE WE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FO R THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.91/V IZAG/2014, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE VIDE ITA N OS.92 & 93/VIZAG/2014 ALSO. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH AUG16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! /VISAKHAPATNAM: % /DATED : 16.08.2016 VG/SPS '! (! /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO (TDS), WARD-3(2), SVR PL AZA, 2 ND FLOOR, MOGHALRAJAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE PROJECT DIERCTOR, INDIRA KR ANTHI PATHAM, URBAN (MEPMA), DWACRA BAZAR, KHAMMAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. ) / THE CIT(TDS), HYDERABAD 4. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 5. ! , , , , ! / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /0 , (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) , , ! / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM