TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn in Form No.26A which was due to be filed on 30.4.1989 as required under Section 206 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 37 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 13.3.2001 and served upon the assessee on 15.3.2001 requiring it to show cause as to why penalty under Section 272A(2) (c) of the Act should not be levied for the default. 2.2 Said show cause notice was replied by the assessee stating that the accounting and legal matters were handled by the accountant and because of family dispute no attention was given by the partners. It is also stated that a person cannot be penalized for same default under various provisions of the Income Act. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clarificatory nature of amendment. Accordingly, order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld by the impugned order. Against this order, present appeal is preferred by the appellant. 3. At the time of admission hearing, the following question of law came to be framed vide order dated 4th October 2005. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that penalty levied under section 272A(2) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be restricted to the amount to tax deductible at source by treating the amendment to the said provision as being clarificatory in nature?" 4. The pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....day without any maximum limit. The Act has amended section 272A of the I.T.Act to provide that the maximum limit of penalty imposable in such cases shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be". ii. The case of ITO Vs. Superintendent Engineer reported in 86 Taxman 40 (Jaipur ITAT) is also relevant. In this case, penalty was levied for delay in furnishing annual TDS return of salary for A.Y.198889 and 8990. The Tribunal further observed that the quantum of penalty must be determined by reference to the law as it stood when the offence or default was committed. If the amendment is purely procedural in nature and affects only the machinery for levying and collecting penalty and not the very i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... c. The amendment in question, besides being beneficial to the appellant also clarifies and explains the intention of the legislature as it always was in enacting the provision of Sec.272A(2). d. The amendment brought about is purely procedural in nature providing for the machinery for having and collecting penalty. This amendment does not affect the very ingredients of the default contemplated u/s.206. Since the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings the amendment brought about was applicable to the facts of the case and hence benefit under the amendment should be made available to the appellant and the amount of penalty should accordingl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. The above Tribunal judgments have held the subsequent amendment as clarificatory in nature to the effect that the penalty should be restricted to the amount of TDS deductible. The revenue has not controverted the fact that nature of the default is not harsh to go beyond the clarificatory nature of amendment. In consideration of all the facts, I am of the view that the CIT (A) has rightly restricted the penalties to the amount of TDS. His orders are upheld. 5. Revenue appeals are dismissed." 6. Several grounds have been raised in support of this appeal to which we have given our patient hearing. Considering the materials on record and the submissions made by the learned advocate, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a differe....