2021 (12) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 935 264918 93500   26Q Q2 2008-09 74090200005566 15.10.08  05.02.11 843 9373 9373   26Q Q3 2008-09 74090200005570 15.01.09 05.02.11 751 6234 6234   26Q Q4 2008-09 74090200005581 15.06.09 05.02.11 600 74152 60000                 Total 169107 3. As per the above chart, the penalty was levied based on the order of Addl. CIT(TDS) that the assessee paid the tax deducted during survey conducted on 04.02.2009 to finalize the TDS liability. The show cause notice was issued to the assessee and after considering the reply filed by the assessee, the Addl. CIT(TDS) levied penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act). With the above observation that the reason given by the assessee were general and there was no reasonable cause for delay. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Pune, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT(TDS) with the following observation : "5.7 In vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing reasons:- Reasonable Cause - I - Discharge of TDS Liability and No details available with appellant 4. During F.Y. 2008-09, there was a survey conducted on 04.02.2009 W/s 133A for TDS purpose. At the time of survey, assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,09,915/- as directed by the Department. 5. During the survey, appellant had paid such TDS on Expenses which were liable for deduction of TDS on the instruction of Department. However, such amount was paid on the instruction of the department and therefore, appellant was not having both TDS challans and party-wise details to file quarterly TDS returns. 6. It is submitted that the above TDS was paid through Department directly. Challans which was received by appellant are enclosed herewith for your reference. It can be seen that TDS has been paid by Cash. Hence, appellant has no clue on which basis such liability has been determined and further, against which parties TDS has been deducted. Reasonable Cause - II-Bonafide belief that TDS compliances have been made 7. Since, department has itself directed and finalized the TDS liability of Rs. 1,09915/-, appellant was under bonafide belief that al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Health 16. Appellants business was badly affected and Turnover fell from Rs. 76.16 crs to Rs. 11.30 crs. Infact, it had suffered loss during the impugned year. 17. Some of the parties has not only started pressuring for dues outstanding but has initiated recovery proceedings against the appellant in Court. 18. Further, appellant's bank a/c was also fridged and loan facility was stopped by bank. 19. Due to acute financial problem and non-corporation from bankers, appellant's health was also badly affected. 20. Appellant is a heavy diabetic and asthmatic patient with BP problem and on insulin Appellant has not only fallen ill but was also hospitalized in or around February 2009. Reasonable Cause -VI - Prosecution Dropped 21. It may be noted that the prosecution proceedings launched by the department against the appellant was also dropped on account of the forgoing facts and difficulties being reasonable cause. Reliance is placed on following case laws:- A. S. 272A : Penalty - Failure to answer questions - Sign statements - Furnish information - Reasonable cause - Levy of penalty was held to be no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble cause-No loss of revenue on account of late filing of return-Penalty to be deleted [S. 273B] The person responsible to file quarterly tax deduction at source return for the assessee failed to file it by due date. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 272/A(2) (k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this. On appeal Held, allowing the appeal, that according to section 273B of the Act, if reasonable cause for the failure to file the return of tax deducted at source was proved, penalty was not imposable. In the assessee's case, the assessee explained that it was not aware of the fact that a return was to be filed at the branch level. Thus there was reasonable cause for failure to comply with the requirement. The tax was deducted on time and paid to the Department and the necessary return was also filed. Therefore, no loss of revenue had occurred on account of late filing of the return. Thus, the penalty was merely technical in nature and since levy of penalty was not mandatory, depending upon the facts of the case, the penalty was to be deleted. (AY. 2011-2012) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Add. CIT (2015) 38 IT....