9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been paid in time and the necessary return in respect of the same was duly filed in time with the Income-tax Department. No loss of revenue has occurred on account of late issue of tax deduction certificates. None of the contractors has raised any grievance on account of late supply of the certificate. Keeping in view these facts and especially that the default is merely technical or venial in nature, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case for the levy of penalty. - - - - - Dated:- 12-8-2004 - Judge(s) : N. K. SUD., A. K. GOEL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N.K. Sud J.- The assessee has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -do- 75 days 4. Forbes Gokak Ltd. 31-10-1995 -do- 228 days 5. Gannon Dunkerley and 30-4-1996 -do- 47 days Co. Ltd. 6. Sharma Electric Works -do- -do- 47 days 7. Vilas Transport Co. -do- -do- 47 days 8. Royal Clearing Agency -do- -do- 47 days Total Nos. of days of default 1039 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain as to why penalty under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act be not levied on account of the above mentioned default. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature as there was no loss of revenue involved at all and even the contactors had not raised any grievance about late issue of the certificates. This explanation did not find favour with the Assessing Officer, who levied a penalty of Rs. 1,03,900 which is equal to Rs. 100 per day for failure of 1039 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shimla, who accepted the explanation of the assessee. He observed that the appellant is a Government undertaking having more than 5000 persons requiring to be issued tax deduction certificates on Form No. 16/16A and there is a delay in issuing the certificates in only eight cases. He, therefore, held that there was no mala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ighlighted the fact that none of the contractors had raised any grievance against the delay in issuing tax deduction certificates which are required by them only for filing their income-tax returns, due date for which was much beyond June 7, 1996, when the certificates were issued. Mr. A. S. Tewatia, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the order of the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders of the authorities below, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. It is not disputed that the assessee is a branch of a big Government of India undertaking, HMT Limited, having thousands of employees. It has been correctly pointed out that it has to issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
