9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee on the similar issue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3.The Revenue in ITA No.441/Chd/2012 has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in reducing the penalty levied u/s 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 5,20,000/- for non quoting/wrong quoting of PANs in 53 cases in the TDS Returns 26Q for the A. Y. 2008-09. 2.The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in giving relief to the assessee merely on the ground that the penalty can be levied of ₹ 10000/- only in view of the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons for their fault by the Bank; and that the Bank has made all efforts to get the correct PAN Numbers but failed due to lapse on the part of the persons/clients for which Bank deserves no penalty; That there is reasonable cause for failure of Respondent Bank in not furnishing the correct PAN number within given time. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the present cross appeal. 3. The issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of CIT (Appeals) in restricting the penalty levied under section 272B of the Act from ₹ 5,30,000/- to ₹ 10,000/-. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days. The assessee further stated Also as per the official process the concerned Branch Manager sends the legal matters to the DGM, Regional Office, Karnal for its opinion and guidance which is evident from copy of the forwarding letter written by the concerned Branch Manager of Yamuna Nagar, which is annexed as Annexure A. However, the assessee had failed to enclose the said letter alongwith application moved for condonation of delay. In the facts of the present case we find no merit in the condonation application moved by the assessee as the assessee before us is a Nationalized Bank and bank officials cannot be said to be ignorant of the basic principles. Further all the banks have their system wherein lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the order of the CIT (Appeals) in restricting levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at ₹ 10,000/-. 8. Similar issue arose before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of various assessees and the Tribunal in the undermentioned cases had upheld the levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at ₹ 10,000/- : S.No. NAME OF ASSESSEE ITA NO. ASSTT. YEAR DATE OF DECISION 1. ITO(TDS) Vs. State Director Secondary Education, Chandigarh 777/chd/2012 2009-10 22.11.2012 2. Advanced Micro Devices Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal had upheld the levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act levied for default in furnishing the PAN Number, to the extent of ₹ 10,000/-, in a series of decisions, which were not taken note of by the other Bench of the Tribunal. We also find that the assessee had defaulted in not bringing to the knowledge of the Bench the said decisions which have been decided earlier to the order passed on 16.4.2013. In any case, the perusal of the order reflects the efforts being made by the assessee therein to collect the PAN Numbers of the deductees and necessary details could not be furnished and the Tribunal thus held that there was reasonable cause in not furnishing the details and hence no penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
