2004 (8) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... July 25, 2002, for the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and. upheld the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On January 13, 2004, counsel for the assessee was asked to explain as to how one appeal was maintainable against the order of the Tribunal in two appeals for different assessment years. Counsel submitted that the present appeal be treated for the assessment year 1995-96. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the same. The assessee had deducted tax at source out of payments made to eight contractors. Under the provisions of section 203 read with rule 31 of the Income-tax Rules 1962, it was required to issue tax deduction certificate in Form No. 16A to the said parties within the prescribed time. However, the said....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....         -do-               47 days 7.   Vilas Transport Co.              -do-             -do-             47 days 8.   Royal Clearing Agency            -do-             -do-            47 days      Total Nos. of days of default  ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in time and we have not received any grievances from any employees, contractor or dealer for late issue of certificate or for any loss incurred by them. The assessee also placed reliance on certain decisions of the Tribunal in various cases to show that the default was merely technical in nature as there was no loss of revenue involved at all and even the contactors had not raised any grievance about late issue of the certificates. This explanation did not find favour with the Assessing Officer, who levied a penalty of Rs. 1,03,900 which is equal to Rs. 100 per day for failure of 1039 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shimla, who accepted the explanatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nterest as well. He further pointed out that the default, if any, was purely technical or venial in nature involving no loss of revenue and, therefore, no penalty is exigible in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26. He also highlighted the fact that none of the contractors had raised any grievance against the delay in issuing tax deduction certificates which are required by them only for filing their income-tax returns, due date for which was much beyond June 7, 1996, when the certificates were issued. Mr. A. S. Tewatia, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the order of the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perus....