TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays 9,700 Total 1024 1,02,400 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who upheld the levy of penalty and observed that the delay was not of one or two days but there was delay of 1024 days, hence, it reveals a wilfull attempt for non compliance of statutory provisions. In the provisions of section 272A(2)(K), the word "shall" is mentioned indicating that if there is violation of these provisions, the imposition of penalty is mandatory. As per section 273B, penalty may not be imposed if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for such failure. The assessee was not having any genuine ground or the compelling circumstances for not filing of TDS return in time. The statutory provisions were introduced so that the deductee can take credit for the taxes it has already paid. Against the order of ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT(A) at page 3 & 4 of her order has correctly held that in FY 2010-11, there was a change in filing of e-TDS Return. In this regard, it is submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell before the filing of TDS Returns. Thus, there was no loss to Department because late deposition of TDS was compensated by way of payment of Interest on the same, as per the provision of the Act. Hence, there was no mala fide intention involved. S. No Quarter ( In form No.26Q) Amount of TDS deduction Due date of TDS deposition Date on which TDS deposited 1 April-June 1,64,651.- 07th of the following month 26.07.2010 07.08.2010 2 July-Sep 4,28,232.- 07th of the following month 07.10.2010 16.11.2010 3 Oct-Dec 17,497.- 07th of the following month 10.01.2011 4 Jan-March 5,550.- 07th of the following month 25.05.2011 4.4 It was further submitted ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that the assessee was not having any genuine ground or the compelling circumstances for not filing of TDS Return in time. Practically it is a difficult task to arrange the PAN of so many deductees who are scattered throughout the county. Therefore the same should have been accepted as reasonable cause. In this regard, the attention is drawn towards the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonable cause for belated filing of TDS return. Relevant extract has been set out here for the sake of convenience. A) Collector Land Acquisition v. ACIT (2012) taxmann.com 22(Chd.): "However, it is also explained that as the PAN numbers were not provided by the duductees, so the e-TDS returns could not be filed in time. In our view, the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons regarding non filing of TDS returns in time, therefore, no penalty should be levied in these cases. Even otherwise also, the assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever by not filing the e-TDS returns in time, as the amount of TDS was duly deposited in the government treasury within prescribed time. Such delay has not caused any loss to the Revenue/Income Tax Department" B) CIT Branch Manager (TDS), UCO Bank vs. ACIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 45 (Cuttack - Trib.): "Head note - Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to answer question, sign statements, furnish returns or statements, etc. [Reasonable cause] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee-bank failed to file return of tax deducted at source within specified time - It was explained that due to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in filing TDS return is not because of fault of assessee but because of deductees themselves. The deductees were reluctant to provide their PAN to the assessee which resulted into non filing TDS return in the stipulated time frame. Therefore, the contention of ld. AO that the deductees being unaware of delay in return filing, expect the credit of the same by the department on the specified date does not hold good. The deductees were well aware of the fact that until PAN is provided to the assessee the TDS return cannot be filed by the assessee and consequently TDS credit cannot be claimed. The contention of AO that the deductees are stressed has no merit because they themselves were preventing the assessee to file the TDS return in time. Needless to mention that instead of deductees being stressed the Ld. AO should mention the deductor was stressed because of that repetitive efforts made by him to collect the PAN from the deductee. 4.7 The Ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) misplaced their reliance on the following judicial pronouncements, because the facts of the cases relied upon and the facts of the assessee's case are different as submitted below: S. No Facts of Shah T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be filed. 5. The DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act is correct and the ld CIT(A) is justified in confirming the same. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Firstly, it is noted that the penalty has been levied u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act which talks about the failure to deliver a copy of the statement within the time specified in section 200(3) or proviso to section 206C (3) of the Act. In the instant case, there is no such factual situation before us rather there is a delay in filing of quarterly e-TDS returns which is covered under the provisions of section 272A(2)(C) of the Act. Hence, on this ground itself, where the Assessing Officer is not clear about basis of the charge, the levy of penalty cannot be sustained. 7. On merits, it is noted that during the financial year 2010-11 which is under consideration before us, there was a change which was brought about in filing of e-TDS returns wherein there was a necessity to mention 100% valid Permanent Account Numbers of the payee to whom the paymen....