Case Law Details
Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Introduction: The recent case of Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs. JCIT before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi addresses a crucial aspect of penalty imposition under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute revolves around the delayed filing of TDS returns and the subsequent penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Detailed Analysis: In the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee contended that the delays in filing TDS returns were due to financial constraints. The quarterly TDS returns were submitted suo moto after the remittance of TDS with applicable interest, without any notice from the income tax department. The AO, however, upheld the penalty under section 272A(2)(k), a decision affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
The ITAT, in its comprehensive analysis, noted that the reasons for the delayed filing were duly explained by the assessee and were not found false by the revenue. The assessee had already incurred interest under section 201(1A) for late remittance, ensuring no loss to the exchequer due to the delayed TDS returns. Emphasizing the nature of a mere technical venial breach, the ITAT ruled against invoking the penalty provision.
The decision draws support from precedent, particularly the case of Haryana Distillery Ltd vs JCIT, reported in 97 taxmann.com 571 on 4.9.2018. The tribunal highlighted that a technical breach, without resulting in any loss to the exchequer, should not warrant the imposition of a penalty.
Conclusion: The ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Ambience Developers’ case sets a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle that for a mere technical venial breach, penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act should not be invoked. The decision aligns with the view that penalties should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense, especially when there is no financial loss to the government. This judgment provides clarity on penalty imposition in cases of technical breaches and adds a nuanced perspective to the interpretation of tax laws.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. The appeal in ITA 1633/Del/2022 for AY 2010-11, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 27/10073/2009-10 dated 18.05.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.02.2021 by the Assessing Officer, JCIT, Range-73, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’) and appeal in ITA Nos. 1634 and 1635/Del/2022 for AYs 2009-10 and 2010- 11, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. 27/10053/2008-09 dated 20.05.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 09.03.2021 by the Assessing Officer, JCIT, Range-73, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
3. The only effective issue to be decided in all these appeals is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had furnished its TDS returns on a quarterly basis with certain delays, which are tabulated in pages 2 and 3 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had explained that the delay in filing of TDS returns was due to the paucity of funds with the assesses and accordingly the assessee had remitted the TDS with applicable interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act to the account of the Central Government. The TDS returns could not be filed electronically without remitting the requisite taxes. Further it was explained that some of the parties had not furnished their Permanent Account Number (PAN), without which the assessee could not file its TDS returns electronically. Hence there was a delay on the part of the assessee to file the TDS returns in time. The Quarterly TDS returns were suo moto filed by the assessee after due remittance of TDS with applicable interest without receiving any notice from the income tax department. Accordingly, it was pleaded that there was only a technical venial breach committed by the assessee , for which it should not be invited with the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The ld. AO however did not heed to the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act for the delayed filing of quarterly TDS returns. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).
5. We find that the assessee had duly explained the reasons for the delayed filing of TDS returns. The reasons explained by the assessee were not found to be false by the revenue. We find that the assessee had already suffered the interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the late remittance of TDS. Hence there is no loss to the exchequer by the delayed filing of TDS returns by the assessee. For a mere technical venial breach, the assessee should not be invited with penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Our view is further fortified by the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Haryana Distillery Ltd vs JCIT reported in 97 taxmann.com 571 dated 4.9.2018.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon hereinabove, we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for all the years under consideration are allowed.
7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2024.