9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai, in appeal No. 355/13-14 dated 21-03-2016. The penalty was levied by ACIT, TDS Range, Thane for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 03-05-2013 u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty by the AO in violation of late submission of TDS monthly statements under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act levying penalty of ₹ 71,663/-. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed quarterly statements of TDS under section 200(3) of the Act read with Rule 31 of the IT Rules 1962 as under: 4. As there was delay in filing of TDS stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the deductee would only be given credit to such deduction of tax at source once the e-filing by the deductor was on-time not requiring penalty @Rs.100 per day as have been put forth by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) indicating that the provisions of such default is liberal to the extent that the amount so deducted and credited to the Government account was not to be more than the penalty so levied. This clearly indicates that the case-laws as submitted by the learned Counsel of the assessee before us indicates that there is no less to the Revenue for attracting or levy of such penalty. ITAT, Cuttack Bench, in the case cited above, had clearly held that once the amount is deducted by identifying the deductee it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they are now being governed by the computer which software has its own filters for accepting the quarterly statements for which the assessee in default have not maintained any record to establish that efforts were made by them to reduce the time delay in filing such statements. Concluding, we observe that it is only a question of delayed filing of the e-TDS quarterly return, which was entrusted to an authorized service provider and the delay has occurred unintentionally. The assessee deductor is law compliant and the delay occurred only due to the reason that the assessee deductor is dependent on information of TDS and its deposit from the sub treasury of the Government and filing of e-return through the designated service provider of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er [2003] 260 ITR 641/131 Taxman 596 and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Royal Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 37 SOT 139 and the decision of ITAT, Cuttack Bench in the case of Garrision Engineer (I) R D, (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that for such technical or venial breach supported by reasonable cause, penalty under sec. 272(A)(2) is not leviable and imposition of penalty is not justified for the reason that it was for the first time the requirement to convert the hard-copy into soft-copy was to be learnt by respective Government DDOs from the department officials. There is reasonable cause for delay in filing ETDS return U/s 273B. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases in its ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
