9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/Mum./2016 2. The issue arising in this appeal relates to imposition of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are, while processing the TDS statement filed in Form no.26Q for different quarters of financial year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer found that all such statements have been filed belatedly. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain why penalty should not be imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for delayed filing of TDS statement. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not comply to the notice issued. Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer observed that there are substantial delay of 394 to 729 days in filing TDS statement, which makes t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the assessee. 7. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts discussed above, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for different quarters of the financial year 2009-10 due to delay in filing of TDS statements. However, while deciding assessee's appeals for the first three quarters of the financial year 2009-10, the Tribunal vide ITA no. 2916-2918/Mum./2016, dated 11th May 2018, has deleted the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Facts being identical, respectfully following the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 13. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, without declaring the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot impose penalty under section 271C of the Act. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) ACIT v/s Sri Chaitnya Educational Trust, ITA no.1156-1163/ Hyd./2016, dated 30.05.2018; and ii) CIT v/s H.P. State Electricity Board (H.P. HC). 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. The fact that the Assessing Officer has not passed any order under section 201(1) of the Act treating the assessee as an assessee in default has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
