AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty u/s 272B of the I.T. Act without any cogent reason. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by deleting the penalty by holding that assessee PR has filed correction statement immediately on receipt of show cause notice generated by the system, ignoring the fact that assessee PR did not file any correction statement in response to the show cause notice issued by this office. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty u/s 272B of the I.T. Act ignoring the facts that the assessee PR has quoted invalid PAN in violation of sub-section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the respective deductees. The reliance was place on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 . 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the penalties by observing in para 4 of the impugned order as under: "4. I have considered the issue and the written submission. From the facts, it is evident that the appellant filed TDS correction statement immediately on receipt of show cause notice generated by the system and a copy of acknowledgement was sent to the AO. The appellant received the final show cause notice of penalty beyond the specified date of compliance. Since the invalid/missing PANs have been made good by filing correct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, there was no malafide mistake and penalty u/s 272B was not leviable. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: -CIT and Another Vs GAIL (India) Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 711 (All) -Om Prakash Subhash Kumar Vs ITO (2012) 144 TTJ 38 (Del-Trib.) It was also submitted that the AO levied the penalty in respect of each of the deductees whereas the penalty if at all leviable was to be levied only on the basis of the return of TDS and not in respect of individual deductee. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-TDS Vs DHTC Logistics Ltd. (2014) 41 Taxmann.com 439 (Del) . 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause shown which would be a question of fact in the given facts and circumstances. Thus, there was no substance in the argument raised by the Revenue that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate permanent account numbers in Form 24Q." 10. In the present case also whatever was the mistake which the AO pointed out in the PAN numbers of the deductees, was corrected by the assessee, therefore, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 272B of the Act was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). On a similar issue the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs GAIL (India) Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 711 held as under: "The penalty under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and section 139A(5B) the deductor may be at fault under section 139A(5B) if he does not quote the permanent account number of the persons to whom the amount has been paid, despite the intimation of permanent account number by such person to the deductor under section 139A(5A). There was nothing on record to show that the contractors to whom certain amounts were paid by the assessee, had intimated their permanent account number to the assessee as required under section 139A(5A). Therefore, the assessee had explained with reasonable cause under section 273B as to why the assessee could not satisfy the provisions of section 272B." 11. In the present case also the assessee quoted the PAN numbers which were provided by the deductees, so if ther....