2011 (2) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gistry of Tribunal has raised an objection that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) was on 14th July, 2004 and according to the above order there is a delay of 5 years for filing the present appeal. It was submitted by the assessee before the Registry of Tribunal that the assessee has received the order on 24th March, 2008 and there was no delay. Subsequently the Registry of Tribunal addressed a letter dt. 28th Nov., 2008 to the CIT(A), Bikaner to find out when the order dt. 14th July, 2004 was received by the assessee. In response to the above letter of Registry of Tribunal, Jodhpur, the learned CIT(A) has written a reply stating that records of assessee are not available for verification. As per the office objection there is a delay of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t there was a heavy work load in the office and the staff who are in-charge of the deduction of the tax were not fully aware of the income-tax proceedings and there was a mistake on the part of the staff for non-deduction of the surcharge. It was also submitted before the lower authorities that when it was brought to the notice of the office, the entire amount of Rs. 49,869 along with interest under s. 20 as raised by the ITO was paid before initiating the proceedings under s. 271C of the Act. The AO as well as the learned CIT(A) imposed and confirmed the penalty under s. 271C on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence that due to excess work and busy schedule, the employees had not deducted the surcharge. The learned ....