9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice. The said observation of the ld. CIT(A) was not rebutted. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly do not see any merit in these appeals of the department. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos. 6491 to 6494/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2015 - N K Saini, AM And Beena A Pillai, JM For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv For the Respondent : Shri S K Jain, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench These four appeals by the department are directed against the common orders dated 15.10.2013 of ld. CIT(A), Rohtak for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Common issues are involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,90,000/- for the four quarters and similar penalties amounting to ₹ 70,000/-, ₹ 13,40,000/-, ₹ 15,60,000/- and ₹ 7,40,000/- were imposed for default in respect of 7, 134, 156 and 74 deductees. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee deducted tax correctly and filed statement in Form No. 24Q as such there was sufficient compliance for the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. It was further stated that quarterly returns were filed by the assessee timely and only 18 invalid PANs of deductees out of total 195 were neither element of Mens Rea nor there was a guilty mind. It was further submitted that the AO failed to appreciate the fact that it was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) was not justified in deleting those penalties. 8. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee corrected the mistakes in the PAN. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: - CIT (TDS) Vs Superintendent of Police (2012) 349 ITR 550 (P H) - ITO(TDS) Vs Executive Engineer (2015) 69 SOT 421 (Del- Trib.) It was further submitted that the assessee furnished the statement of tax deducted at source in Form No. 24Q timely and the tax was deducted correctly, so there was no mistake of the assessee because the PAN number which were supplied by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failure to comply with the provisions of Section 139A of the Act. On a similar issue the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (TDS) Vs Superintendent of Police (2012) 349 ITR 550 held as under: The assessee quoted invalid permanent account numbers for 196 deductees. The error was due to wrong quoting of permanent account numbers by the deductees to the assessee. The assessee rectified the mistake by furnishing the correct permanent account numbers as soon as it came to its notice. The revised permanent account numbers and the revised statement were filed. The tax was deducted and deposited in time in the Government treasury. It has been further held as under: That there was nothing to show that the findings r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially, after considering the explanation of reasonable cause submitted by the assessee and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It has further been held as under: That it was the statutory obliteration of the contractors, who received certain amounts from the assessee, from which tax was deducted under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, to intimate their permanent account numbers to the assessee. It is the specific stand of the assessee that certain contractors had not intimated their permanent account numbers and for that reason they could not be mentioned in Form 16A issued to such contractors. Section 139A(5B) makes it obligatory for every person deducting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
