9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before passing the penalty order by J.C.I.T., Allahabad. II. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as well as, authority below were justified to levy the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) of the I.T.A. without considering the explanation of the college, as well as, during the pendency of the application for extension to time dated 16.01.2013. III. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified to reject the appeal outrightly without going into the merit of the case, as well as, no intention and no loss of the revenue because the tax has been deposited always within time. IV. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified in rejecting the appeal despite the fact that in compliance of notice dated 13.12.2012 the return (statement) was filed between 08.02.2013 to 15.03.2013 and order was passed by the Joint Commissioner Income Tax (TDS) on 22.04.2013." The Assessing Officer, on going through the records of the College, detected that the College had failed to furnish e-TDS quarterly statements online for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and had consequently violated the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 24Q 2,23,647/- 15/07/2007 Not filed 2102 2,10,200/- 2,10,200/- 2008-09 24Q 1,85,939/- 15/07/2008 Not filed 1737 1,73,700/- 1,73,700/- 2009-10 24Q 5,74,761/- 15/07/2009 Not filed 1372 1,37,200/- 1,37,200/- 2010-11 24Q 8,09,208/- 15/07/2010 Not filed 1007 1,00,700/-1,00,700/- 2011-12 24Q 7,14,349/- 15/07/2011 Not filed 642 64,200/- 64,200/- Feeling aggrieved, the College filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals). To explain the delay it was sought to be contended : "It is very important to mention here that it was always submitted before the learned Joint Commissioner (TDS) in all hearings that the non filing of TDS return was just because that the post of principal was on temporary basis till the date of permanent posting from commission. All the deductions of TDS were made properly, TDS was deposited in Government account well within time. Only the return was not filed within due dates. Again the appellant reproduced the facts for causes of non-filing of TDS return within due dates as under :- i) The Principal of the college Sri Triloki Nath Singh was retired on 30.06.2006; ii) And the senior lecturer, Pt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed from the due date of filing to the date the returns were actually filed. It is held here that the period upto 31.03.2010 may be considered a period upto which either there was no regular incumbent or new incumbent was in the process of re-arranging the records etc." It would, therefore, to be seen that the appellate Authority calculated the penalty with effect from 1 April 2010 as the regular Principal of the College assumed charge of the office on 25 January 2010. The College filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by order dated 21 January 2016. The Tribunal found that since the assessee had not filed the e-TDS statements in time, the Assessing Authority had issued a show cause notice dated 12 October 2012 for its compliance by 26 October 2012 and though sufficient time had been granted to the appellant to furnish reasonable or sufficient cause for non-filing of the e-TDS statements but no explanation was furnished. The Tribunal noted that though the assessee had been deducting tax at source but was not filing the e-TDS statements for years together and it could not be accepted that the assessee was not aware of the legal provisions regarding the filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd no satisfactory explanation was offered. Learned counsel, to support his contention, has placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 373 ITR 268 (Bom.). We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Section 200 of the Act deals with duty of persons deducting tax and the same is reproduced below : "200. Duty of person deducting tax. (1) Any person deducting any sum in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. (2) Any person being an employer, referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall pay, within the prescribed time, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. (3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the said application that since the Principal had joined the College only on 25 January 2010, it would take some time to collect the records for filing the e-TDS statements. A request was, therefore, made for granting one month time for filing the e-TDS statements. It needs to be noted at this stage that the appellant did file the e-TDS statements on 8 February 2013/9 February 2013. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that since no order was passed by the Assessing Authority on this application, it cannot be said that any opportunity was given to the College to furnish explanation for the levy of penalty. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Even if no order was passed on the application, the appellant was obliged to file the statement and offer an explanation but even after the expiry of the period prayed for in the application the appellant did not furnish any explanation for the delay in filing the e-TDS statements. The Assessing Authority, therefore, in the absence of any explanation having been offered by the appellant, levied penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. It is only before the Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prescribed due date. Undoubtedly, delay in furnishing of TDS returns/statements has a cascading effect. Under the Income-tax Act, there is an obligation on the Income-tax Department to process the Income-tax returns within the specified period from the date of filing. The Department cannot accurately process the return on whose behalf tax has been deducted (the deductee) until information of such deduction is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time. The timely processing of returns is the bedrock of an efficient tax administration system. If the Income-tax returns, especially having refund claims, are not processed in a timely manner, then (i) a delay occurs in the granting of credit of TDS to the person on whose behalf tax is deducted (the deductee) and, consequently, leads to delay in issuing refunds to the deductee, or raising of infructuous demands against the deductee; (ii) the confidence of a general taxpayer on the tax administration is eroded; (iii) the late payment of refund affects the Government financially as the Government has to pay interest for delay in granting the refunds; and (iv) the delay in receipt of refunds results into a cash flow crunch, esp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
