Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs Dcit, Cpc-Tds, Jaipur on 25 November, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 737/JP/2016
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14.
Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma,
B-27, Radha Vihar,
New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
cuke
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN /TAN No. JPRA06341 G
vihykFkhZ@Appellant
izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Advocate)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25.11.2016.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/11/2016.
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-III, Jaipur dated 31.05.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
" On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has legally and factually erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,844/- levied u/s 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts discussed in written submission supported by case laws cited therein. Thus, confirming the levy of penalty is legally and factually not maintainable and deserves to be deleted summarily."
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the AO noticed that the assessee had failed to furnish Quarterly Statement (Returns) of TDS in the prescribed Form No. 26Q in time for the financial year 2010-11 as required u/s 206 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A show cause notice under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act dated 06.09.2012 was issued to the assessee. In response thereto, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. No submission was filed. Therefore, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 27,844/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the penalty.
3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us.
4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief and submitted that there was reasonable cause for non furnishing of the requisite return as envisaged under section 206 of the Act. He submitted that the provision is newly introduced, therefore, it was not a deliberate act but when the assessee came to know about the default, he immediately filed Form No. 24Q and 26Q.
4.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that it is not the case where the assessee has immediately filed return but there was a delay of 439 days, 347 days, 255 days and 135 days respectively.
4.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue is whether non furnishing of Form No. 24Q and 26Q was bonafide or there was any reasonable cause for filing late. The only explanation of the assessee in this regard is that the provisions were recently introduced. Therefore, the assessee was not aware of the penal provisions. Having considered the facts, the assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 27 (Ori.) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 244 ITR 417 (Guj.) in support of the contention that if there is a reasonable cause, then penalty should not be imposed. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has held as under :-
" In the instant case, the tax deducted at source under the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was deposited in the Government account well within the prescribed time. There was no loss of revenue but only a failure to forward the certificate and since the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that it was a bona fide mistake, the inference was based on facts. The Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty under section 272A(2)(g). No question of law arose for reference."
Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), we find no justification in imposing the penalty, the order of ld. CIT (A) is, therefore, set aside. The penalty is deleted.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ( dqy Hkkjr)
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT )
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 25/11/2016.
Das/
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Jaipur.
2. The Respondent- The DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad.
3. The CIT(A).
4. The CIT,
5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. Guard File (ITA No. 737/JP/2016)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar
4
ITA No. 737/JP/2016
Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma