9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 180 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 272A(2)(k) - failure on the part of the assessees to file the quarterly returns of TDS in Form 24Q and 26Q for the year under consideration - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - Assessee has not furnished the relevant details and documents to support and substantiate the case of the assessees that the delay on the part of the concerned deductees in furnishing details resulted into the delay in filing the relevant TDS returns by all the assessees. He however has contended that the assessees are in the position to produce all these relevant details as well as documentary evidence before the A.O. to establish that there was a delay on the part of the concerned deductees to furnish their PAN details and the same constituted a reasonable cause which prevented the assessees from filing the relevant TDS returns within the stipulated time. He therefore has urged that one opportunity may be given to the assessees by sending the matter back to the A.O. for this purpose. Thus consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to accept this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and since the learned D.R. has also not raised any objection in this regard, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide the issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) afresh, after giving the assessees proper and sufficient opportunity to support and substantiate their case of reasonable cause by producing relevant details and documentary evidence - Decided in favour of revenue partly by way of remand.
Issues:
Penalty under section 272A(2)(k) for failure to file TDS returns within stipulated time. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty Imposed by Assessing Officer The Assessing Officer imposed penalties under section 272A(2)(k) on all six assessees, including the Head Office and Zonal Offices of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for failure to file quarterly TDS returns in Form 24Q and 26Q within the prescribed time. The penalties were based on the lack of reasonable cause for the delays in filing the returns as per statutory requirements. Issue 2: Appeals Before CIT(A) The assessees challenged the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. During the appellate proceedings, the assessees provided explanations for the delays, citing reasons such as lack of competent staff, delays in obtaining PAN details of deductees, and the delays being beyond their control due to technical issues. Issue 3: Decision of CIT(A) The CIT(A) considered the submissions made by the assessees and various judicial pronouncements. The CIT(A) concluded that as government organizations, the assessees had no malicious intent in filing the TDS returns late. Since the tax was deducted and paid to the government, and there was no revenue loss or gain, the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer were deemed unjustified. Therefore, the CIT(A) canceled the penalties for all six assessees. Issue 4: Appeals Before ITAT The Revenue, aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s decision, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the penalties were justified due to the lack of reasonable cause for the delays. The DR contended that the technical nature of filing TDS returns did not negate the penalties under section 272A(2)(k). Issue 5: Decision of ITAT The ITAT analyzed the contentions of both parties. It noted that the requirement of filing TDS returns was technical and did not directly impact revenue. The ITAT disagreed with the CIT(A)'s basis for canceling the penalties, finding it unfounded. The ITAT also addressed the assessees' reliance on the second proviso to section 272A(2), stating that it did not apply to the present cases where the TDS returns were due before the specified date. Additionally, the ITAT found that the reasonable cause for delays, related to obtaining PAN details, was not adequately substantiated. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on the imposition of penalties. Conclusion The ITAT partially allowed the appeals of the Revenue, emphasizing the technical nature of filing TDS returns and the need for substantiating reasonable causes for delays. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further consideration based on the provided explanations and evidence.
|
