2013 (2) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the ld ITO , TDS is wrong in levying penalty u/s 272A of ₹ 10000/-. 3. All the three appeals relating to the same assessee on identical issues were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. Th ebreif facts of the case in ITa No. 853/Chd/2012 are that the assessee had furnished e-TDS quarterly statement of deduction of tax in form No. 26Q relating to financial year 2007-08 on 14.06.2008 in which PAN numbers of 45 deductees out of total of 260 tax deductees were found to be invalid/missing. The assessee did not furnish the correction statement before the Assessing Officer and hence the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272B of the Act at ₹ 10,000/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee had failed to furnish on record the evidence of having sent the letters to the respective deductees and hence the Cit (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. In ITA No.855/chd/2012 the default was in respect of e-TDS quarterly statement of deduction of tax filed in form No. 26Q relating to financial year 2008-09 on 17.06.2009 in respect of 38 tax deductees out of 178 tax deductees, where the PAN numbers were found to be invalid/missing. The assessee claims to hac=ve filed correction statement on 26.03.2012 but the same was incomplete and further no evidence of issue/dispatch/service of the letters to the deductees was furnished before the CIT (Appeals). The default was in respect of remaining 17 PAN numbers,. The CI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ers to deductees and hence there is no merit in the plea of the assessee that it had complied with the provisions to the extent it was possible at his end. The provisions of section 272B(1) of the Act provide that if a person failed to comply with the provision of section 139A, the Assessing officer may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of ₹ 10,000/-. In view of the above said provisions of the act we are in agreement with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in levying penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under section 272B of the Act. Thus ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open court on 28 day of February, 2013 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X