TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were heard together and are being decided by common order. For the appreciation of facts, we shall take up appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 being ITA No. 6334/M/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee availed for a certificate under section 197 of the Act for deduction of tax at lower rate. And as per the provisions of Income Tax Act assessee has to file TDS return in form No. 24Q and 26Q for four quarters i.e. for first quarter before 15 July 2007, for second Quarter before 19th Feb 2008, for third-quarter before 15 January 2008 and for fourth-quarter before 15 June 2008 respectively. On perusal of record AO found that assessee filed quarterly TDS returns after due dates. For first-quarter the assessee filed returns lat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee further relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 8525/M/2010 in ACIT versus Karrox Technology (P) Limited, ACIT Vs Lok Prakashan Ltd in ITA No. 2815/Ahd /2009, ACIT Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in ITA No. 155to 160/H/2015, Union Bank of India versus ACIT in ITA No.122/Agra/2012, Branch Manager(TDS) UKO Bank versus ACIT in ITA No. 91/CTK/2013, SBI Vs JCIT (TDS) in ITA No. 261&262(CTK) of 2014 and the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT versus Schell International reported viz; 278 ITR 630(Bom). On the other hand, ld DR for revenue argued that assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation to the notice of penalty. It was further argued that the assessee despite given sufficient prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee was deliberate and was not condonable. The coordinate bench of Ahmadabad Tribunal in ACIT versus Lok Prakashan (supra) while dealing with the similar penalties held as under: "15 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that the assessee company was liable to deduct tax as per the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Act. The assessee accordingly deducted the tax and also paid the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within time is also not in dispute. Further, the assessee was liable to file quarterly statements in Form No.24Q and 26 is also not in dispute. The assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) is that the assessee was prevented from filing the quarterly statements within prescribed time because of the lack of knowledge of the requirement of law on the part of the Directors of the assesseecompany and its employees. We find that the provisions of furnishing of the quarterly statements were introduced under subsection (3) of section 200 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1- 4-2005. We find that Revenue could not bring any material before us to controvert the above finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and to show that the assessee was earlier aware of this requirement of law. Further, on the facts of the case that the assessee has paid the tax within the prescribed time, itself shows that ordinarily ther....