9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal of the 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 dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 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 had filed e-TDS quarterl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 legal maters are taken care of by the concerned officer and services of professional are also available to the bank. The assessee had failed to established it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal 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 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO(TDS), Panchkula 490/chd/2012 2006-07 26.11.2012 3. The Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. ITO(TDS), Panchkula 830 to 833/chd/2012 2009-10 31.01.2013 4. The Branch Manager Vs. ITO(TDS), Panchkula 853 to 855/chd/2012 2008-09 & 2009-10 28.02.2013 9. The learned A.R. for the assessee had also filed Paper Book in which the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ambala Distt. Co- op. Milk Producers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the assessee has failed to establish its case of reasonable cause for the default. In view of the earlier orders of the Tribunal on the above said issue of levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act, we uphold the imposition of penalty under section 272B of the Act at ₹ 10,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus dismissed. 11. In view of our upholding the levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at ₹ 10,000/-, we find no merit in the Cross Objections filed by the assessee. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed both being delayed and even on the merits. 12. In the result, both the appeal filed by Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
