9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 - Since this fact is not disputed by the revenue that CBDT has issued a clarification whereby it has been clarified penalty u/s 272B of Rs. 10,000/- is linked to the person and not with the number of defaults – thus, there is no infirmity in the orders of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A .Nos.-675,676 & 677/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2012 - SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA AND SHRI KULBHARAT, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty demand of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 272B of the IT Act as per per person (appellant) per year. 3). In appreciating the fact that the Section 139(5B) is to be read in conjunction with Section 272B, if these two sections are read together, the intend of the legislation becomes apparent that the penalty is to be levied per PAN in the TDS return and not per person. The facts are identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that section 272B of the Act is to be read in conjunction with section 139A(5B) of the Act. He submitted that non-mentioning of the PAN, made the deductor liable for penalty u/s 272B and such penalty is leviable on each default. On the contrary, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the tax at source is deductible u/s 194C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompel deductee to provide PAN. 6. We have heard the rival submissions perused material available on record. Ld. CIT(A) has restricted penalty to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in all these appeal following the clarification embodied in the CBDT letter dated 05.08.2008. Since this fact is not disputed by the revenue that CBDT has issued a clarification whereby it has been clarified penalty u/s 272B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
