UCO BANK, PATIALA HOUSE BRANCH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 78, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.7646/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

UCO Bank, Vs. JCIT, Patiala House Branch, Range-78, Patiala House Court, Tilak New Delhi Marg, Near India Gate, New Delhi PAN :DELUO2819RF (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. Yash Pal Rawla, CA Respondent by Sh. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 15.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 17.03.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:

Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing

the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)-41, New Delhi, confirming the penalty

imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in

short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2008-09.

2 ITA No. 7646/Del/2017 AY: 2009-10

internal sources that some public sector banks have paid interest

on FDRs beyond the threshold limit without deducting tax at

source, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding under section

201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. After calling for necessary details and

verifying them, the Assessing Officer, though, passed order under

section 201(1)/201(1A) without raising any demand on account of

TDS liability, however, noticing that the assessee failed to furnish

the quarterly TDS statements within the time prescribed under

section 200(3) of the Act, initiated proceeding for imposition of

penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act alleging that the

assessee failed to file any reply with supporting evidences to

establish that there was reasonable cause for late filing of the

TDS statements. The Assessing Officer proceeded to impose

penalty of Rs.12,27,000/- for different quarters falling in financial

year 2008-09. Against the penalty order so passed, assessee

preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

(Appeals) noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee was

belated. On perusing the affidavit seeking condonation of delay,

he observed, though, the assessee has stated that there was delay

3 ITA No. 7646/Del/2017 AY: 2009-10

of 33 days, but the actual delay was more than 80 days.

Therefore, he observed that the assessee, having failed to

satisfactorily explain the cause of delay, the appeal cannot be

entertained.

not reveal the actual relief sought. Thus, on the reasoning that

the grounds raised by the assessee are not clear and the delay

was not satisfactorily explained, learned Commissioner (Appeals)

dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without going into the

merits.

materials on record. Though, it is not clear from the materials on

record, what explanation the assessee filed before the Assessing

Officer to explain the delay in filing the TDS statements, however,

before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has

furnished detailed submission, explaining the reason for delay in

filing the TDS statements. On perusal of the submissions made

before learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that the

employees of the assessee were not well acquainted with the

procedure of e-filing of TDS return which was made effective from

assessment year 2008-09. Assessee had submitted, the

4 ITA No. 7646/Del/2017 AY: 2009-10

employees were still at learning stage, as far as computerized

system of filing is concerned, since, the bank in the near past had

switched over itself from old system to CBS system and the

employees are getting acquainted with the new banking software.

In our view, the aforesaid submissions made by the assessee

constitute a reasonable explanation under section 273B of the

Act. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for imposing penalty,

merely, because there is delay in furnishing the TDS quarterly

statements. Moreover, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not

gone into the merits of the issue and dismissed assessee’s appeal

in limine. Even, accepting that assessee’s version of delay is not

correct and actual delay is of 80 days, in our view, such delay not

being fatal should have been condoned as the assessee has made

out a case for condonation of delay.

imposition of penalty under section 272A(2)(k), we fail to

understand what more clarification was required by learned

Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the nature of relief sought by

the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, we delete the penalty

imposed of Rs.12,27,000/- under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act.

Grounds are allowed.

5 ITA No. 7646/Del/2017 AY: 2009-10

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2022

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 17th March, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi