9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer noted that the assessee had not filed quarterly return of TDS in Form 26Q as required under section 200(3)/206 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the financial year 2007-08. Further, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice as to why penalty under the above provisions may not be imposed. The assessee filed a reply but the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee. The Assessing Officer verified the records and noted that the assessee had committed a default of non-filing of return within the stipulated period, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs. 1,44,222. 3. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and it was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. The branch of the assessee is located in semi-rural area in Malerkotla which is not very developed city and most of the clients of the bank are agriculturists and small businessman or from unorganised sector and they did not comply with the requirement of filing permanent account number, therefore, there was a delay in filing the TDS return as per the rules within time. 3(i) It was, therefore, pleaded that the assessee had reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law and that no loss to the Revenue have been caused. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee and observed that penalty is leviable if the assessee failed to deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be, on or after July 1, 2012. Thus, no penalty is leviable after July 1, 2012, as is specified in the second proviso to the aforesaid section. 5. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Addl. CIT [2015] 38 ITR (Trib) 535 (Chandigarh) (ITA No. 476/CHD/2014, vide order dated December 9, 2014) cancelled the penalty considering reasonable cause in favour of the assessee. The findings of this order in paragraphs 6 to 8 are reproduced as under (page 537) : "We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record. In this case, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has failed to file e-TDS returns for the first and second quarter with a delay of 252 days a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had deducted tax at source out of payments made to eight contractors. Under the provisions of section 203 of the Income-tax Act 1961, read with rule 31 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, it was required to issue tax deduction certificate in Form No. 16A to the said parties within the prescribed time. However, the said forms were issued late. The assessee was a branch of a Government of India undertaking having thousands of employees. It had to issue tax deduction certificates not only in respect of payments to eight contractors but also to its employee and creditors in respect of tax deducted out of salary as well as interest. The assessee stated that the default was merely technical in nature as there was no loss of revenue involved at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
