9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before us against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 18th March, 2010 passed for asst. yr. 2005-06. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 10,000 levied under s. 272B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ending on 30th June, 2005 was filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as deducted the tax from payments made to 8 parties. The tax was deposited in time. It has also filed the TDS return. The failure on its part was to quote PANs of five deductees. It has written letters to those deductees for providing their PANs but they failed to give. There is no mechanism with the assessee to compel such persons for providing the PAN. The assessee filed copies of the letters wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Corpn. ( supra) and the Tribunal concurred with the proposition that Act did not empower the deductors to compel the deductees for providing PAN and in such situation, if any penalty was to be imposed then it should be upon the deductees for not providing the PAN to the deductors instead of imposing the penalty upon the deductors. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n s. 272B of the Act. The stand of the assessee is that in spite of its request, the deductees did not provide the PAN. In such situation, it was quite difficult for the assessee to comply with the provision. The assessee has written letters to the deductees whose copies are placed on record. Thus, assessee has tried its best to comply with the provisions. Taking into consideration both these sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
