Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre[ld.CIT(A)], Delhi dated 21.02.2023 for A.Y.2011-12 emanating from the penalty order under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act, dated 31.05.2013. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The delay in submission of TDS return was not deliberately but due to awareness of submission of TDS return through electronic system as this electronic system of submission is complecated and not understandable. The agency authorize by DIT (System), NSDL was Ramchandra Bhagwanrao Deshmukh [A] changing file validation utility often. There are so many Income Tax Tribunal authority considered above reason and allowed appeal. We are enclosing herewith order issued by ITAT Ahmedabad in case No. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2009. Order pronounced in the court on 08-01- 2010.”
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Findings &Analysis : 3. We have heard ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue and perused the records. The assessee was required to submit TDS quarterly statements under section 200(3) within the prescribed time. However, assessee failed to submit the quarterly TDS statements within the prescribed time. The due dates and actual date of submission of TDS statement are as under as mentioned in the penalty order :
Thus, there was substantial delay in filing the TDS quarterly statements. The ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS Range) issued penalty notice to the assessee. Assessee has not filed any explanation for the delay before the JCIT. The ld.JCIT levied penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of Rs.67,014/-. Before the Ramchandra Bhagwanrao Deshmukh [A] ld.CIT(A), assessee has taken only one plea that the electronic system of filing the TDS return was complicated, therefore, assessee could not file it in time. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. As mentioned in the earlier para, none appeared for the assessee. In the ground of appeal, assessee has repeated the same reason i.e. electronic system was complicated. The assessee has not given any valid reason for inordinate delay which is tabulated by us in earlier paragraphs. The reason sought by assessee that electronic system is complicated cannot be accepted as valid reason as All Over India various assessee have been using the electronic system of filing TDS Returns. Be it as it may be, the delay is substantial. The system issue is not sufficient to explain the said substantial delay. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the penalty order.
4.1 We find support from the order of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Raja Harpal Singh Inter College Vs. PCIT, [2016] 386 ITR 327 (Allahabad), who have relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here under : Quote, “15. The Bombay High Court in RashmikantKundalia (supra) also emphasised the necessity of filing e-TDS statement in time and Ramchandra Bhagwanrao Deshmukh [A] observed: "13. It is not in dispute that as per the existing provisions, a person responsible for deduction of tax (the deductor) is required to furnish periodical quarterly statements containing the details of deduction of tax made during the quarter, by the prescribed due date. Undoubtedly, delay in furnishing of TDS returns/statements has a cascading effect. Under the Income-tax Act, there is an obligation on the Income-tax Department to process the Income-tax returns within the specified period from the date of filing. The Department cannot accurately process the return on whose behalf tax has been deducted (the deductee) until information of such deduction is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time. The timely processing of returns is the bedrock of an efficient tax administration system. If the Income-tax returns, especially having refund claims, are not processed in a timely manner, then (i) a delay occurs in the granting of credit of TDS to the person on whose behalf tax is deducted (the deductee) and, consequently, leads to delay in issuing refunds to the deductee, or raising of infructuous demands against the deductee; (ii) the confidence of a general taxpayer on the tax administration is eroded; (iii) the late payment of refund affects the Government financially as the Government has to pay interest for delay in granting the refunds; and (iv) the delay in receipt of refunds results into a cash flow crunch, especially for business entities."
Thus, though it is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the appellant that non-filing of the e-TDS statements had not resulted in loss to the revenue but the requirement of filing eTDS statements in time cannot be overlooked. The Department cannot accurately process the returns on whose behalf tax has been deducted until information of such deduction is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time and as emphasized by the Bombay High Court "timely processing of returns is the bedrock of an efficient tax administration system". It is, therefore, necessary for the deductor to file e-TDS statements in time so Ramchandra Bhagwanrao Deshmukh [A]
as to enable the processing of the returns in time. The Assessing Authority has also emphasised this aspect in the order dated 22 April 2013. It has been stated that filing of e-TDS statements not only increases the reach of the department but also leads to creation of an audit trial that can be utilized as an effective tool against detection of tax evasion. It is for this reason that stringent action is required to be taken for non-compliance. In such circumstances, it cannot also be urged by learned counsel for the appellant that no penalty could have been imposed for non filing of the e-TDS statements in time as it has not resulted in any loss to the revenue.
The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant primarily are to the effect that before imposing any penalty, adequate opportunity is required to be granted. This is what also was contemplated in section 272A(4) of the Act.
We are of the opinion that adequate opportunity had been granted to the appellant but the appellant failed to utilize the opportunities that had been granted. In fact even when the appellant had appeared through a counsel, only an adjournment was sought and even thereafter no explanation was offered before the Assessing Authority. However, an explanation was offered before the Appellate Authority which was taken into consideration and the penalty amount was suitably reduced as the case of the appellant that a regular Principal assumed charge on 25 January 2010 was accepted and the penalty was imposed after that date. The decision dated 3 December 2015 of the Tribunal in and 227, therefore does not help the appellant.
We, therefore, find that substantial questions of law that had been framed in this appeal do not arise for consideration.” Unquote.
Ramchandra Bhagwanrao Deshmukh [A] 4.2 Since the facts are identical, respectfully following the Hon’ble High Court (supra), sole ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th June, 2023.