9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty order under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act; 3. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) having held that the action of the ITO(TDS & Survey), Ghaziabad in initiating proceedings under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act was not correct in law erred in not holding that the penalty order dated 16.03.2010 passed under se. 272A(2)(k) was void and illegal; 4. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the penalty order dated 16.03.2010 passed under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act was not time barred as per the provisions of sec. 275 of the Act and as such not bad in law; 4.1 That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the time limit for passing an order under sec. 272A(3)(k) starts from 25.02.2010 the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or annulled or modified; 12. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that as a result of survey/verification exercise carried out by the ITO(TDS), serious default on TDS payment were unearthed. It was noted further that the assessee had not filed e-TDS return in form No. 24Q, 26Q and 27EQ and also could not provide any reasonable cause for such to furnish the e-TDS returns by the due date. The ITO(TDS) initiated penalty proceedings under sec. 272A(2)(K) of the Act and referred the case to the Office of the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is barred by limitation and there was sufficient reasons for non-filing of the e-TDS returns in time. The first appellate authority, however, agreed with the assessee that penalty order is silent about the period of default and consequent computation of penalty. The first appellate authority accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and accordingly recomputed penalty imposed under sec. 272A(2)(K) of the Act. Similar order has been passed by the learned first appellate authority in all the three years. Being aggrieved with this action of the first appellate authority, the assessee has preferred present appeals before us. 6. The Learned AR has reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. This direction was given by the Learned CIT(Appeals) appreciating the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer in the penalty order has not given computation of the penalty imposed under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act and statement of e-TDS return was furnished. 9. In the assessment year 2007-08, similar contention was raised that Assessing Officer in the penalty order was silent about the period of default and consequent computation of penalty. Appreciating this contention of the assessee, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and accordingly re-compute penalty imposed under sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 10. In the assessment year 2008-09, no such grievance reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two years meaning thereby that the default was for FYs.2006-07 and 2007-08 only. There was no default during FY 2005-06. Therefore, it has been contended that the Addl.CIT(TDS) has wrongly imposed penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. It has further been contended by the appellant that according to the provisions of section 275 of the Act the order levying penalty could be passed either within a period of six months from end of the month in which the order was passed or by the end of financial year in which the order was passed. In terms of section 275 of the Act, the order levying penalty could be passed by 31-03-2009. The order levying penalty has however been passed on 16-03-2010. Therefore, the order is time barred. Regarding appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not correct in view of the relevant provisions of the Act. The ITO(TDS) instead of initiating proceedings U/S 272A(2)(k) of the Act should have mentioned that " the case is being referred separately for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act to the Addl.CIT(TDS)" who was the competent authority. Thus it is held that the order passed by Addl.CIT(IDS) u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act dated 16-03-2010 is held as fully valid. Submissions made by the appellant on the issue of matter being barred by limitation are hereby rejected. The appellant has contended that there was no default in furnishing of e- TDS returns in Form Nos.24Q, 26Q and 27EQ for the relevant accounting period. The appellant has furnished statement of the e- TDS returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
