Sudip Roy Choudhury Vs JCIT (TDS) (ITAT Kolkata)
in the present case, the assessee deducted the TDS and deposited the same. Even there was no failure to submit return in Form 26Q. There was only failure for its timely submission – which by all counts is a technical breach. Further the delay had happened due to assessee’s ignorance about the lapses caused by his past accountant. The accountant left the job without notice. No list of pending job was handed over. The new accountant and the assessee was not aware of the fact of non-filing of TDS return till they visited NSDL. And as soon as the same was noticed, returns for both the quarters were filed. Thus the delay had happened due ‘to circumstances beyond the knowledge / control of the assessee. It is further submitted that there was no loss to revenue due to the late filing of return as the tax was deducted and deposited in time and hence the breach of law if any was only a technical default.assesse had shown reasonable cause for his failure in complying with the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act, hence no penalty could be levied.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-24, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 272A(2)(k) / 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 28/06/2013.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:
1. For that the Appellate order passed was in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the entire proceeding was bad in law and thus the Appellate Order be cancelled / quashed.
2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals) of Income Tax erred in confirming the penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without accepting the reasonable cause shown within the meaning of Sec 273B the Income Tax Act, 1961. The imposition of penalty was bad in law and hence the same be deleted and or quashed.
3. For that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned CIT(Appeals) is bad in law and therefore the same is unjustified and be deleted.
4. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
5. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.
3. Brief facts qua the issue are that Assessing Officer noted that assessee has filed quarterly TDS statements late, therefore he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 81,178/-invoking the provisions of section 272A(2)(k) of the I T Act, 1961 as per the following computations:
