TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in affirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for alleged failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the provisions of section 139A of the Act in respect of the TDS deducted from the payments made to its employees. 2. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that in respect of 7 employees, the correct/valid PAN were not made available to the appellant by the deductees and thus there was no default on the part of the appellant under section 139A(5B) of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of non-mentioning of PAN numbers in respect of 34 deductees. In respect of one of the deductees, though no tax was actually required to be deduced at source as the total amount was below the maximum amount chargeable to tax, however, tax was deducted out of such payment. But there was no merit in any imposition of penalty for non furnishing of PAN number of such employee. In respect of balance 10 employees the assessee claimed that the correct/valid PAN numbers were not made available to the assessee by the respective deductees. The CIT (Appeals) noted that the assessee had not revised its TDS returns despite incorrect/invalid PAN numbers. Because of the default of the assessee in not quoting PAN numbers of 11 deductes, penalty under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asonable cause in the present appeal as the assessee had failed to furnish the requisite documents in time before the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue raised in the present appeal is in relation to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act for the default in quoting of PAN numbers of the deductees in the e-TDS quarterly statement filed in Form No.24Q by the assessee. The assessee in the said Form No.24Q relating to financial year 2009-10 had wrongly quoted the PAN numbers in respect of 10 deductees. The assessee had filed correction statement before the Assessing Officer and also before the CIT (Appeals) but the same has not been considered by the Assessing Officer or the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In view of the above said provisions of the Act we are in agreement with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in restricting levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Similar issue arose before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of various assessees and the Tribunal in the undermentioned cases had upheld the levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at Rs. 10,000/- : S. No. Name of Assessee ITA No Asstt.Year Date of Decision 1. ITO(TDS) Vs. State Director Secondary Education, Chandigarh 777/Chd/2012 2009-10 22.11.2012 2. Adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were not taken note of by the other Bench of the Tribunal. We also find that the assessee had defaulted in not bringing to the knowledge of the Bench the said decisions which have been decided earlier to the order passed on 16.4.2013. In any case, the perusal of the order reflects the efforts being made by the assessee therein to collect the PAN Numbers of the deductees and necessary details could not be furnished and the Tribunal thus held that there was reasonable cause in not furnishing the details and hence no penalty. However, the assessee has failed to establish its case of reasonable cause for the default. In view of the earlier orders of the Tribunal on the above said issue of levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act, we uphol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act. However, this claim of the assessee needs verification at the level of the Assessing Officer and hence the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and in turn verify the claim of correction statement filed by the assessee. In case there is no default in respect of the said 10 deductees, then no penalty is leviable under section 272B of the Act. However, if there is default of non furnishing of even one PAN number of any of the employees, the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at Rs.10,000/-. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in line with our order. 10. Now coming ....