2018 (6) TMI 499 - AT - Income Tax

Initiation of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - delay in e-filing of TDS returns - Held that - following the judgement in case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT 2017 (1) TMI 722 - ITAT PUNE and also because of the requirement of e-TDS furnishing of TDS statement arising for the first time in AY 2011-12 there were problems faced by the assessee and hence the delay in filing quarterly TDS return late - though the assessee had deposited tax at source in time we hold that the assessee had reasonable cause in not furnishing the same in time and in view of the provisions of section 273B we hold that the assessee is not liable to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of section 273B regarding reasonable cause for non-compliance.
3. Overlapping defaults for quarterly returns.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 272A(2)(k):
The appeal concerns the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) for the delay in filing TDS statements for the first quarter of the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee argued that the delay was due to unfamiliarity with the e-filing procedure, despite timely payment of taxes. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 41,700, which was upheld by the CIT(A), citing that section 273B did not cover this section, thus mandating the penalty.

2. Applicability of Section 273B:
The Tribunal referenced its decision in Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT (TDS) Range, Pune, where it was established that section 273B covers defaults under section 272A(2)(k). The Tribunal noted that the introduction of e-TDS filing was complex and required numerous amendments, making compliance challenging. It was held that if reasonable cause for the delay was established, no penalty should be imposed under section 272A(2)(k). The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding that section 273B did not apply and accepted that technical difficulties and lack of support constituted reasonable cause.

3. Overlapping Defaults for Quarterly Returns:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of overlapping defaults, where penalties were imposed for each delayed quarterly return. It was argued that penalties should be restricted to the first quarter only, as subsequent delays were consequential. The Tribunal agreed, directing the Assessing Officer to verify and restrict the penalty to the first quarter, eliminating penalties for overlapping defaults.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing e-TDS returns due to the technical and procedural challenges of the newly introduced system. It directed the deletion of the penalty under section 272A(2)(k), emphasizing the applicability of section 273B in cases of reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to adjust the penalties accordingly, considering the overlapping defaults.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on June 5, 2018.