9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st for assessment year 2011-12. Delay due to illness of MD - Considering the illness of Managing Director, during relevant period, alternate submission of Ld.AR to restrict penalty to be computed from date of payment of TDS amount to the credit of Government could be accepted. AR was directed to file a chart by computing penalty from the date of making payment for both years. AO is directed to verify the same and restrict Penalty u/s.272(k)(2) to such amount as computed from date of deposit of TDS with Government. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3251 And 3252/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2020 - Shri. B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ravishanka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2010 for A.Y:2010-11 and 2011-12. It was submitted that assessee was not able to mobilise of funds for business activity, due to the health of managing director who was looking over finance and statutory payments. Assessee also submitted that, health of managing director did not stabilise up to 2012, and it was during the month of March 2012, due to kidney transplant surgery, he could not attend office to take necessary steps/actions in this regard. It was submitted that assessee deposited TDS with interest deducted for financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11, for all quarters with interest till the date of deposit. 4. According to Ld.AO, there was no reasonable cause highlighted by assessee as per sec. 271B for delay in filing TDS returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty Amount 24Q Q1 5,89,680 476 47,600 24Q Q2 5,89,680 384 38,400 24Q Q3 5,89,680 292 . , 29,200 24Q Q4 5,89,680 172 17,200 26Q Q1 1,92,872 291 29,100 26Q Q2 2,55,372 199 19,900 26Q Q3 255,372 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant had also failed to furnish sufficient proof to substantiate his claim to invoke the governing provisions of Sec.271B of the Income Tax Act. Identical issue, however, has been decided by the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dr. Khan Industrial Consultants (P) Ltd., Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Range Thane [2017} 81 tamann.com 219 (Mumbai - Trib.17.) 7. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 8. Admittedly, assessee deposited TDS amount to the credit of Government with interest as on 31/03/2010 and 04/08/2010 for assessment year 2010-11, and for A.Y:2011-12 on 12/04/2011, 10/09/2011 and 29/09/2011. It is also an admitted fact that assessee filed all four quarterly returns on 04/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in light of records placed before us. 12. Admittedly, penalty has been levied only for late filing of TDS returns, and delay cannot be considered to be technical. Reason for delay in filing the returns was non availability of accountant. From documents placed at page 35- 53, for assessment year 20010-11, assessee filed 26Q return of 04/08/2010 and 24Q return was filed on 16/08/2010. For assessment year 2011-12, 26Q returns was filed on 05/05/2011 and 24Q was filed on 03/11.2011. From letter placed at page 145, it is crystal clear that, new accountant took charge with assessee s office on 15/08/2010. Therefore, reasoning that, assessee was unable to file returns, due to non availability of accountant cannot be accepted atleast for as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of penalty May 2013 upto Jan 2019 Interest U/s 220 Total penalty 26Q 12/04/2011 02/05/2011 20 2,000 69 1,380 3,380 24Q 10/09/2011 and '29/09/2011 03/11/2011 54 5,400 69 3,726 9,126 12,506 Total penalty 21,200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
