TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, we will dispose of all the appeals together by this common order. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Person Responsible in respect of Collector Land Acquisition, Department of Industries & Commerce, Punjab Chandigarh (in short 'PR') had not filed the e-TDS quarterly returns on respective due dates and so had defaulted u/s 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). In response to the show cause notice, the person responsible had submitted before the Addl. CIT (in short the Assessing Officer) that the delay was due to the fact that the land owners have not submitted their PAN numbers and there was no intentional delay on the part of the PR. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is paid by the Organization to the Land Owners through the District/High Courts. The TDS is deducted at Source on the interest is deposited in the Court and not paid directly to the Land Owners. The mostly Land Owners/Agriculturist don't have PAN Numbers. 4. The Assessing Officer ignored the submissions made by the assessee and penalty of Rs. 6,11,600/- was imposed. 5. Govt. has issued guidelines for submission of ETDS quarterly returns. It was decided that Form 26Q with less than 70% of Pan Data will not be accepted for the quarter ending on 30.09.2007. With non availability of requisite PAN data, we could not submit the ETDS returns. Before 30.09.2007 we were filing the all TDS Returns in Time. The Details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The CIT(A) did not find any merit in the above submissions of PR and therefore, CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Shri Harry Rikhy, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 12.8.2010 informed the PR that there was a delay in filing of e-TDS quarterly returns for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The total number of days of default was 6116. A show cause notice was issued on 14.12.2010. In reply, the PR has informed that due to non availability of PAN number, the e-TDS quarterly returns could not be filed in time but the tax was well deducted in time and deposited with the government acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit goes to deductee. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty levied should be cancelled. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC). 7. The Ld. DR supported the orders of CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and relied upon the reasons mentioned in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, the penalty levied in all the aforesaid cases deserves to be canceled. The reasons for taking such a view are stated in the following paras. 9. It is an admitted fact that the amount of tax deducted at source by the assessee (Person Responsible) was paid with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the duductees, so the e-TDS returns could not be filed in time. In our view, the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons regarding non filing of TDS returns in time, therefore, no penalty should be levied in these cases. Even otherwise also, the assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever by not filing the e-TDS returns in time, as the amount of TDS was duly deposited in the government treasury within prescribed time. Such delay has not caused any loss to the Revenue/Income Tax Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd (supra) inter alia held as under:- "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty wil....