9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays for leave to add to, amend or modify its grounds of appeal and lead evidence." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the jewellery business. It operates number of retail outlets in Maharashtra State wherein it sells jewellery to the public in general. A survey u/s 133A was conducted at the premises of the assessee by the Director General (C & I). It was found that the assessee neither obtained nor informed to the department PAN of 232 customers to whom jewellery of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more was sold, as required u/s 139A(5)(c) of the IT Act. The default was liable to penalty u/s 272B and accordingly the DCIT, Circle-6, Pune initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272B of the IT Act. The assessee explained that it had reasonable cause for its failure as the requirement for obtaining & informing the department of the PAN was introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and thus the financial year 2016-17 was the first year of its operation. It was also argued that 232 instances constituted a single offence and not 232 separate offences. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DHTC Logistic Ltd. for this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, I am of the opinion that no interference is required in the penalty order. Hence the penalty of Rs. 23,20,000/- is upheld. All the grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed." 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in not considering the decision passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DHTC Logistic Ltd. wherein it has been clarified that the penalty u/s 272B of Rs. 10,000/- is linked to the person and not with the number of defaults. Accordingly, it was submitted that since the person who committed the default is one, may be in 232 instances but the default should be treated as one and, therefore, the penalty should not be more than Rs. 10,000/-. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was a partnership firm and subsequently converted into a private limited company and 272B penalty proceedings were also initiated in the case of private limited company for the same default and the Assessing Officer initiated 272B penalty proceedings under identical facts for 91 instances of sales which are made to 91 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y u/s 272B for 91 such defaults. Therefore, it was contended that in one of the case of the assessee, the Department has taken one view and in the case of the same assessee, taken another view. Therefore, the Department is blowing hot and cold at the same time, which is not justified. In this regard, copy of penalty order passed u/s 272B in the case of P. N. Gadgil & Sons Ltd. for assessment year 2018-19 was furnished before us. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that upto September, 2019 the language of section 272B suggests that for all such defaults penalty of Rs. 10,000/- can be imposed but from September, 2019 the Government has amended section 272B and inserted the words "ten thousand rupees for each such default", therefore, after September, 2019 penalty for each such default have to be imposed but not prior to that. In this regard, we may refer section 272B prior to and after amendment which is as under :- "Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 139A. 272B. (1) If a person fails to comply with the provisions of section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten thousand rupees. (2) If a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each such default.] (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) [or sub-section (2A) or sub-section (2B)] shall be passed unless the person, on whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed, is given an opportunity of being heard in the matter." 9. Apart from above, the assessee is also relying on a judgement passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DHTC Logistic Ltd. in ITA No.314/2013 order dated 26.07.2013 wherein the appeal of the Department was dismissed by observing as under :- "1. There are two reasons why we feel the present appeal should not be entertained. 2. Firstly, the assessing officer in the penalty order under Section 272B has not specifically referred to any default or failure by the respondent-assessee mentioning PAN Number even when the said particulars and details were available. The stand taken by the respondent was that the PAN Numbers were not furnished by the Truck owners and, therefore, they were not quoted by them or PAN Numbers as informed were quoted. In case, the PAN Numbers are not furnished by the deductees, the respondent- assessee cannot be penalized under Section 272B. Section 139A also imposes the obligation on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
