9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered it to be a reasonable cause - in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 2253 & 2254/Del/11 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL JJ. Appellant by : Shri A.K. Singh Sr. DR Respondent : Shri O.P. Sapra O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M:: These are two appeals filed by the revenue against separate orders of CIT(A), assailing deletion of penalties levied u/s 272A(2)k) of Rs. 9,50,400/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and u/s 271-C of Rs. 5,61,421/- for A.Y. 2009- 10. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Respective effective grounds are as under: ITA no. 2254/Del/11 ( u/s 272A(2)(k): On the facts and in the circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings Assessing Officer noticed total delay of 6018 days in filing form no. 26Q 24Q. Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) be not imposed for late filing of quarterly returns in form nos. 24Q 26Q. In response, assessee explained that late filing was due to paucity of funds, due to which the TDS were deposited late, on which the assessee has already paid interest. As the TDS returns mention the date of deposit of TDS such returns could only be filed after the TDS was deposited, the e-returns were delayed. Rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee, Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100/- per day for delay in filing quarterly returns in form nos. 26Q and 24Q. 2.1. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 194A, 194C, 194I and 194J on the amount of interest, contractual payment, rent and professional charges paid to various parties. Rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide its consolidated order for F.Y. 2005-06 to 2008- 09, imposed penalty of Rs. 5,61,421/- for F.Y. 2008-09 ( A.Y. 2009-10)u/s 271C of the Act. 3.1. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty, observing as under: 4.2. For non deduction of tax at source of Rs. 275620/- in financial year 2008-09 from May to August 2008 on payment of salary u/s 192 or on contract payment of Rs. 281983/- (263525+18458) u/s 194C the appellant has filed medical certificate from a orthopedic surgeon to prove the accountant s (Mr. S.D. Thakur) absence fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her hand contends that in these two years no additional evidence was filed by the assessee. There is no reference to either any application for additional evidence or orders to this effect. Therefore, this ground of the revenue in A.Y. 2009-10 is mis-placed. 5.1. Apropos merits, ld. counsel contends that in A.Y. 2006-07, assessee had paid the taxes along with interest. Due to the exigencies as mentioned in the reply only the e-return of e-TDS could not be filed in time, there is no loss of revenue, thus the penalty becomes technical/ venial in nature. The penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Reliance is placed on Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
