TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 as under- S. No Form No. Qrtr F.Y. RPRNo. Due date Date of filing Delay Tax Amt. deducted (in Rs.) Max. penalty leviable (in Rs.) 1 26Q Q1 2009-10 30170200345106 15.07.09 14.07.11 729 61,562 61,562 2 26Q Q2 2009-10 30170200345110 15.10.09 14.07.11 637 46,861 46,861 3 26Q Q3 2009-10 30170200345121 15.01.10 14.07.11 545 36,449 36,449 4 26Q Q4 2009-10 30170200345132 15.06.10 14.07.11 394 73,919 39,400 TOTAL 1,84,272 As there was delay in filing the TDS statements for the above four quarters for the year under consideration the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee asking it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intention of delaying the submission of TDS returns. 2.4 Late filing of TDS returns is a technical default. One should not be penalized for technical default. This view has been taken by various Tribunals and courts. In view of the foregoing and the fact that penalty provisions been amended in budget 2012 by incorporating new section 234E to levy fee of Rs. 200 per day for delay in filing TDS return indicating thereby penalty should not be levied in a case where taxes were paid in time and there is no loss to revenue. 2.5. The Ld. AO has levied the penalty stating that "due to delay in filing the TDS returns by the deductors, the deductee have to suffer a lot as they do not get credit of TDS till the time TDS statements are uploaded by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Bank v. Addl CIT (2011) 140 TTJ 622/16 iaxman.com 318 (Lucknow) where it was held Non-filing of quarterly statements does not involve any revenue loss & is a mere technical default. Even otherwise, there was only a technical & venial breach of the provision contained in rule 31A of income tax Rules, 1962 requiring the assessee to submit quarterly statements of deduction of tax under sec. 200(3) within the time prescribed. Such delay had not caused any loss to the revnue. C) Rajathan Tribal Area Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. ITO (60 TTJ 427 Jp Trib) where it was held that for mere failure to furnish TDS returns, penalty was not justified as there was no default in deducting tax at source or in depositing the tax in gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h prima facie reveals that the assessee has deposited the TDS with interest as applicable from time to time. We find some strength in the arguments of the Ld. AR that assessee was an individual working in the unorganized sector and therefore, not fully conversant with the complex TDS provisions and had to depend upon some experts to comply with these provisions as TDS provisions certainly require certain higher degree of understanding of TDS provisions and manner of compliances thereof. We also note the fact that the TDS compliances have undergone frequent changes over the last decade in terms of deduction, deposit, e-filing of TDS returns and generation of TDS certificates etc. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the issue on merit....