Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, penalty issue remanded for verification

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of penalty under section 272B of the Income Tax Act was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision based on the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal found no default on the appellant's part for employees where tax deduction was not required, as there was no obligation to furnish PAN numbers for such cases. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the correction statement for specific employees and determine the penalty accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to comply with provisions of section 139A regarding PAN numbers in e-TDS quarterly statement.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 272B for not complying with section 139A regarding PAN numbers in the e-TDS statement. The appellant argued that for 34 employees, no tax deduction was required due to amounts below taxable limits, thus no PAN numbers were necessary. For the remaining 11 employees, the appellant claimed correct PAN numbers were not provided by the deductees. The Assessing Officer held the appellant liable for penalty due to incorrect/invalid PAN numbers and failure to revise TDS returns. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the penalty. The appellant's submission of correction statements was not considered by the authorities. The penalty was imposed as per section 272B(1) of the Act.

A similar issue was addressed in a previous case involving Oriental Bank of Commerce where the penalty was restricted to Rs.10,000 despite a higher initial penalty. Various other cases upheld the penalty at Rs.10,000 under section 272B. The appellant cited a different case where the penalty was deleted due to reasonable cause for not furnishing PAN numbers. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty in this case due to the appellant's failure to establish a reasonable cause for the default. The Tribunal ordered verification of the correction statement for the 10 employees in question.

Regarding employees where tax deduction was not required, the Tribunal found no default on the appellant's part, as there was no obligation to furnish PAN numbers for such cases. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the correction statement and decide on penalty accordingly.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of penalty under section 272B was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision based on the Tribunal's order.

---