2013 (8) TMI 197 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - Quarterly TDS return delayed - CIT deleted penalty - Tribunal held that no evidence has been brought to show that there was any correspondence undertaken with the deductees for obtaining PAN numbers - Held that - CIT(A) could not have, without any discussion as to whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not being able to file the returns within the prescribed time, deleted the penalty merely on the ground that the tax was already deducted. In his essence, this is all that CIT(A) had done in his appellate order - Tribunal also could have at least called for the documents on record before CIT(A) before holding whether there was any evidence with respect to the reason for the assessee s inability to file the returns in time - Case remitted back to CIT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Penalty under section 272 A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The issue revolves around the penalty of Rs. 3.10 lacs imposed on the appellant under section 272 A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The appellant, engaged in the transportation business, failed to file necessary details of tax deducted at source while making payments for transport charges, resulting in a delay of 3101 days in filing quarterly forms.
3. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 3.10 lacs at the rate of Rs. 100 per day of delay, as the appellant did not appear before the Assessing Officer.
4. The appellant contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that due to the nature of the transport industry where many drivers and owners did not provide PAN details, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the quarterly statements.
5. The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's explanation and deleted the penalty, stating that the tax was deducted, and the required form was filed, albeit with a delay.
6. However, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of evidence showing correspondence with deductees for obtaining PAN numbers before the quarterly returns were filed.
7. The High Court observed errors in both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal's decisions, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the evidence and reasons for the delay in filing the returns.
8. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate orders and directed the issue to be reconsidered by the CIT(A), allowing the appellant to submit additional documents if necessary, in accordance with the Income Tax Rules.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural and substantive aspects of the case concerning the penalty under section 272 A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment's nuances and implications.