AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as "the Act") dated 23/07/2014 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of ld. AO in levying penalty of Rs. 1,72,000/-u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in levying penalty without appreciating the fact that delay was caused in filing TDS statement due to acute shortage of funds coupled with inadequate staff and facilities. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the case of appellant falls within the ambit of Section 273B of the Act. 4. The learned C1T(A) ought to have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the delay in filing the TDS return occurred due to inadequate staff and facilities. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and levied the penalty for Rs. 100 for each day of delay aggregating to Rs. 1,72,000/- only. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: "The AO as per his order has imposed penalty stating that "...........As per the provisions of section 273B there is no scope for considering reasonable cause for failure to file statements in time, since section 273B excludes the penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k). In view of the above penalty u/s. 272A (2)(k) is calculated at Rs. 1,72,200/-" It is seen that the AO has not taken Section 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oing well which is evident from the TDS details which are duly deducted by the appellant in the F.Y. 2011-12 (i.e. A.Y. 2012-13). The statement in Form 24Q shows the deduction of Rs. 71.69 lakhs and in Form 26Q itis Rs. 1.55 crores. The appellant company is well assisted by the legal help. The statements are to be filed by the 15lh of the next month from the end of the quarter and along with process of deduction of tax. The process of filing a statement is a continuous process. Even change in staff cannot create a situation to cause a delay in compliance by more than 100 days and as much as 354 days as is the case with the appellant. It is wrong to say that the appellant substantively complied with the provisions by deducting tax and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) assessee is in the second appeal before us. The learned AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the immediate assessment year in the own case of the assessee, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to deleted the addition on account of delay in filing TDS of the return in ITA No.2733/Ahd/2015 vide order dated 01/01/2016. On the other hand, learned DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that in the identical facts and circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT in the own case of the assessee (supra) was pleased to delete the addition made by the lower authorities. The relevant extract of the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rce under the provisions of the Act with the Government within stipulated time. However, where there is delay in such deposits, same has been deposited with interest. Further, the tax deducted at source for the relevant period was deposited by the appellant along with chargeable interest before the issue of show cause notice for the penalty under reference. The default for which penalty has been levied by the AO relates to late submission of Form No.24Q and 26Q of the IT Rules. The assessee's belief constitutes a reasonable cause within the meaning of sec.273B of the Act. Sec.273B of the Act lays down that the penalty shall not be imposed in respect of a default relating to the provisions mentioned therein if the person or the assessee ....