9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 584 - AT - Income TaxLevying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) - Filing the return belatedly - HELD THAT - As considered judicial precedents placed on record. In this case penalty has been levied u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act due to late filing of TDS statements/returns. However, it is an undisputed fact as admitted by the parties herein, that no loss has been caused to the Revenue by the action of the assessee. There may have been procedural lapse on the part of the assessee however, due to such procedural lapse no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. This fact has also been admitted by the Ld. DR.The provisions of Section 272A(2)(k) are subject to provisions of section 273B of the Act and hence, the relevance of reasonable cause has to be established. Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Argus Golden Trades India Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 234 - ITAT JAIPUR and Punjab National Bank 2011 (5) TMI 831 - ITAT LUCKNOW has deleted the penalty levied u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haryana Distillery Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 2018 (9) TMI 289 - ITAT DELHI the question arose whether since on filing belated returns/statements, Revenue had not suffered any loss because tax deducted was already deposited on time and there was mere technical or venial breach to provisions contained in Act for submitting return/statements of TDS. Therefore, penalty was not to be levied and question was answered in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levying of penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS/TCS returns. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents on similar issues. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levying of Penalty under Section 272A(2)(k): The primary issue is whether the penalty of ?2,55,700/- levied under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the delay in filing TDS/TCS returns is justified. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee delayed filing the quarterly TDS statements for the financial year 2010-11 by 564, 472, 380, 452, 564, 472, 380, and 260 days respectively. Consequently, the AO imposed a penalty as the assessee failed to deliver the E-TDS statements within the specified time without any reasonable cause. 2. Reasonable Cause for Delay: The assessee argued that the delay was due to frequent changes in the software, non-availability of PANs, and a lack of knowledge about electronic filing. The assessee had deducted and paid TDS along with interest, and there was no default in tax deduction and payment to the government account. The Ld. AR cited various judicial precedents where penalties were waived off due to reasonable causes for delays, emphasizing that the delay did not cause any loss to the Revenue. 3. Applicability of Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal considered several judicial precedents, including: - Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT: This case elaborated on the issue of levying penalties under Section 272A(2)(k) and the relevance of reasonable cause under Section 273B. - The Board of Control for Cricket In India Vs. ACIT: This case reiterated the significance of reasonable cause in waiving penalties. - Haryana Distillery Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax: This case supported the argument that no loss to the Revenue due to delayed filing should result in no penalty. The Tribunal noted that penalties under Section 272A(2)(k) are subject to Section 273B, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that while there was a procedural lapse, no prejudice was caused to the Revenue as the taxes were deducted and paid on time. The delay in filing the statements was due to reasonable causes, such as software issues and lack of technical guidance. The Tribunal relied on the judicial precedents which supported the waiver of penalties in similar circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k) was directed to be deleted. The order was pronounced on 17th May 2021.
|
