M/s Health Biotech Ltd., Chandigarh V. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

ITA 989/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95464 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 989/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S HEALTH BIOTECH LTD., VS THE JCIT (TDS), SCO 162-164, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 34A, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABCH1876K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SING H RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.08.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHANDIGARH DATED 02.09.2014 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ) CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A( 2)(K) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PERSON RESPONSIBLE HAD FAILED TO FILE QUARTERLY TDS RETURN OF THE 4 TH QUARTER BY DUE DATE. IT APPEARS THAT NOBODY ATTEN DED IN RESPONSE TO THE PENALTY NOTICE AND SO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIO NS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DELAY WAS UN - 2 INTENTIONAL AND NOT DELIBERATE AND NO LOSS TO REVEN UE HAVE BEEN CAUSED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY WAS UN- INTENTIONAL AND NOT DELIBERATE, HAS NOT BEEN SUPPOR TED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED THE CONTENTI ON. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, LOS S TO REVENUE IS NOT RELEVANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS N OT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE QUARTERLY TD S RETURN ON TIME BY DUE DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RETURN BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO REASONS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED FOR DELAY IN FILING TDS RETURN AFTER DUE DATE. THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT THAT IF ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE T O THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IT HAS R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THEN PENALTY MAY NOT BE LEVIED AGAINST ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN ANY REASONABL E CAUSE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF LAW. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLAN ATION WHAT-SO-EVER, TO EXPLAIN DELAY IN FILING THE TDS RE TURN BY 3 DUE DATE. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS NO MER IT. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH AUGUST,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH AUGUST,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH