2017 (5) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stantial ground of appeal is "whether the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,63,807/- imposed by Additional Commissioner of income Tax (TDS), under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act." Rest of the grounds of appeal is argumentative or explanatory in nature. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee failed to furnish the quarterly TDS returns within time, for financial year 2009- 10 before the prescribed authority as required under section 200(3) of the Act read with Rule 31 of Income Tax Rules. The Assessing Officer prepared the following statement on the basis of TDS deposited, due date of filing the TDS returns, date of filing the TDS statements and the number of delay.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the TDS. The assessee also contended that there was no malafide intention on the part of assessee. The assessee never defaulted on earlier occasions or in subsequent years. The contention of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer concluded that it is statutory obligation of the assessee to deduct tax wherever deductible and paid to the accounts of the government, the assessee has to ensure timely submission of TDS statement. The excuse made by the assessee for getting skilled staff etc, are not tenable and reasonable cause to see the benefit under section 273B of the Act. The Assessing Officer further concluded that there is a clear-cut laxity on the part of assessee which cannot be now put forth as a re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, but it was due to the bonafide reasons. In support of the submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd, Vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26(SC), CIT Vs Eli Lilly and Co. India Private Limited 312 ITR 225(SC ), CIT Vs. Harsidh Construction Private Limited 244 ITR 147 (Gujarat), decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Acquafil Polymers Co. Private Limited (ITA No. 3246 & 3247/Ahd/2015 dated 03.02.2016, Kiri Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2733/Ahd/2015 dated 01.01.2016, Br. Manager, State Bank of India Vs. ACIT [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 268], Branch Manager Punjab National Bank [(2014) 140 TTJ 622], ACIT Vs. Lok Prakashan Ltd. [ITA No. 2815/Ahd /2009 dt. 08.01.2010]. On the other hand t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of authority to be exercised judiciously and on the consideration of all relevant circumstances even if minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, wher....