2020 (9) TMI 1092 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) - failure on part of assessee to file quarterly returns of TDS in Form 24Q and 26Q for the years under consideration within the stipulated time - HELD THAT - Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) - failure on part of assessee to file quarterly returns of TDS in Form 24Q and 26Q for the years under consideration within the stipulated time - Non-Availability of accountant - New accountant took charge with assessee s office on 15/08/2010. Therefore, reasoning that, assessee was unable to file returns, due to non availability of accountant cannot be accepted atleast for assessment year 2011-12. Delay due to illness of MD - Considering the illness of Managing Director, during relevant period, alternate submission of Ld.AR to restrict penalty to be computed from date of payment of TDS amount to the credit of Government could be accepted. AR was directed to file a chart by computing penalty from the date of making payment for both years. AO is directed to verify the same and restrict Penalty u/s.272(k)(2) to such amount as computed from date of deposit of TDS with Government. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) for failure to file TDS returns within stipulated time.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant failed to file quarterly returns of TDS in Form 24Q and 26Q within the stipulated time, leading to penalty proceedings initiated by the Ld.AO under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act.
2. The Appellant attributed the delay in depositing TDS amount to the ill-health of the managing director, who was responsible for finance and statutory payments. The Appellant deposited the TDS with interest for the relevant quarters but beyond the due dates.
3. The Ld.AO imposed penalties for the delay in filing TDS returns for different quarters based on the delay in days and the penalty amounts calculated.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalties, emphasizing the importance of timely submission of TDS statements under section 200(3) for proper crediting of TDS to genuine taxpayers and avoiding litigations.
5. The Appellant argued that the delay was due to the unavailability of an accountant and provided evidence of the accountant's resignation and subsequent appointment.
6. The ITAT considered the reasons for delay and directed the computation of penalties from the date of deposit of TDS with the Government, partially allowing the appeals filed by the Appellant.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the key arguments, decisions, and reasoning presented throughout the case.