TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>No Penalty for Late Quarterly TDS Filing Under Section 200(3) and Rule 31A Due to Technical Lapse</h1> The ITAT Pune held that the appellant's failure to file Quarterly TDS statements within the prescribed time under s.200(3) read with Rule 31A constituted ... Penalty u/s.272A(2)(k) - appellant department failed to file the Quarterly TDS statements as prescribed u/s.200(3) within the time as prescribed under Rule 31A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As undisputed fact that no loss has been caused to the Revenue by the action of the assessee. There may have been procedural lapse on the part of the assessee however, due to such procedural lapse no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. The explanation of the appellant that the Quarterly returns could not be uploaded because of difficulty in obtaining the PAN of the deductee’s is a plausible explanation, cannot be rejected in the absence of any material to the contrary. The lapse, if any, is merely a technical or venial breach of provisions of law which does not attract levy of penalty as held in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] and Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd. [1999 (12) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the penalty. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT Pune) addressed an appeal by a Government of Maharashtra department against a penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) read with section 200(3) of the Income-tax Act for failure to file Quarterly TDS statements within the prescribed time under Rule 31A. The penalty of Rs.1,08,100/- was confirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The Tribunal noted that no loss or prejudice was caused to the Revenue due to the procedural lapse. The appellant's explanation-that the delay was due to difficulty in obtaining deductees' PANs-was found plausible and uncontradicted. Citing the Supreme Court in *Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa* (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) and the Gujarat High Court in *CIT v. Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd.* (2000) 244 ITR 417, the Tribunal held that a mere technical or venial breach does not warrant penalty. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable and directed deletion of the penalty, allowing the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
