9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A), Asansol erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the JCIT(TDS), Durgapur u/s 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 55,719/- for alleged delay in submitting quarterly returns in Form no. 26Q for Quarter-3 and Qtr-4. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A), Asansol erred in not appreciating the fact that no reasonable opportunity was provided by the A.O. to explain the delay and even CIT(A) did not provide the reasonable opportunity to the Appellant for furnishing documentary evidence in support of the serious illness of the Accountant who was bed ridden for considerable period of time and who used to look after the entire proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires that, after deducting tax at source and depositing the same in the credit of the government, the deductor must file quarterly TDS statements mandatorily. Failure on the part of the deductor to file correct statements and in time would result in a TDS mismatch and the deductees would be denied their due TDS credits. It would also increase interest burden on the exchequer. It is for this reason that Clause (k) of S. 272A(2) was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2005 into the statute book. Thus, violation of the provisions of S. 200(3) r.w. Rule 31A of the Rules is not merely a technical or venial breach of the provisions. In fact, w.e.f. 01.07.2012 the provisions of S. 272A(2)(k) of the Act have been substituted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted before us that in this case penalty of Rs. 55,719/- was imposed vide order u/s 272A(2)(k) dated 30.07.2013 for delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement for the F.Y. 2010-11 for the 2nd Quarter by 515 days, 3rd Quarter by 423 days and 4th quarter by 303 days. During the course of the appeal proceeding, the appellant stated that the accountant was bed ridden and hence the filings of the returns were delayed. No evidence was given to support the contention that the accountant was bed ridden for more that 500 days. Further if the accountant is bed ridden for 500 days, a new accountant could have been appointed very easily, which was not done. Hence penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer should be sustained. 7. We have heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
