9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the statutory period - assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever by not filing the e-TDS returns in time, as the amount of TDS was duly deposited in the government treasury within prescribed time – in favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NOS. 1226 TO 1229 (CHD.) OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2012 - H.L. KARWA, D.K. SRIVASTAVA, JJ. Harry Pikhy for the Appellant. Smt. Jaishree Sharma for the Respondent. ORDER H.L. Karwa, Vice-President These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of CIT(A), Chandigarh dated 13.10.2011 in confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,11,600/- levied u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. 2. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k the following line of arguments:- "1. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) Chandigarh vide letter dated informed that there is delay in submission of quarterly returns for the financial year 2006-07 to 2009-10. The total Number of delay days were calculated as 6116 days therefore it attracts penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act. 2. In reply the assessee has informed to the ITO (TDS) that due to non availability of PAN the TDS Returns could not be filed in time. But the Tax was Well deducted in time and deposited with the Govt. account 3. It is submitted that the Collector Land Acquisition, Department of Industries is a Government Organization. The Organization is Acquiring Land on Behalf of Punjab Government. The Land Compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PTLC11477E 2008-09 26Q Ql 013270200054790 07/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2008-09 26Q Q2 013270200054801 07/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2008-09 26Q Q3 013270200054812 07/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2008-09 26Q Q4 013270200054823 07/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2009-10 26Q Q3 013270200054834 07/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2009-10 26Q Q1 013270200055195 10/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2007-08 26Q Q2 013270200055206 10/08/2010 PTLC11477E 2007-08 26Q Q4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d directly to the land owners. The land owners/agriculturists do not have PAN numbers. The Department was not able to find the PAN numbers of these land owners. The PR submitted that it had issued letters to individual land owners for PAN numbers at the available addresses but no response was received due to improper address. As the PAN numbers were not provided by the deductee, so the e-TDS return could not be filed in time. Shri Harry Rikhy, Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that it is accepted that there was delay in filing the e-TDS returns but there was no malafide intention of the PR/Department. The TDS was deducted at the rates prescribed by the Income Tax Department. Tax was deposited will in time in the Government Trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing of PAN numbers, the TDS certificate could not be filed in time, but the tax was deducted in time and deposited with the government account. It is also explained that the Collector Land Acquisition, Department of Industries is a Government Organization. The Organization is acquiring land on behalf of Punjab Government. The Land Compensation is paid by the Organization to the land owners through the District / High Courts. The TDS is deducted at source on the interest payment to the land owners. But the compensation and interest is deposited in the Court and not paid directly to the land owners. It is also explained that generally the land owners/agriculturists do not have PAN numbers. The Department was not able to find PAN numbers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 10. From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee was prevented by sufficient case from filing the returns within the statutory period. Even otherwise, there was only a technical and venial breach to the provisions contained in Rules 31A (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Considering the entire facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
