M/S. MANGESH TRADERS,,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (APPEALS) -1,, AURANGABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.147/PUN/2018 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Mangesh Traders, Vs. CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. House No.5-28-116-P, Hamalwada, Silk Mill Colony, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad- 431005. PAN : AANFM8148A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 28.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 10.10.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad’s order dated 03.11.2017 passed in case no. NSK/Addl. CIT (TDS) Range/411/2014-15, involving proceedings u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. A perusal of the case file suggests that not only some of hearing notices sent to the assessee stand received back un-served but also

2 ITA No.147/PUN/2018 nobody has filed any “vaakalat” on its behalf. Faced with this situation, we proceed ex-parted against the assessee. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying section 272(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) penalty of Rs.1,05,900/- on account of its failure to file the necessary information of TDS/TCS compliance, we note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that it had been proceeded ex-parte in the lower appellate proceedings as evident in the CIT(A)’s order despite the fact that four registered notices dated 25.08.2016, 28.06.2016, 25.09.2017 and 10.12.2017 had been issued in course thereof. This is indeed coupled with fact that the assessee has nowhere unable to explain any reasonable cause involving its belated filing of e-TDS statement. 3. We further note that the asssessee all along has pleaded that it could not collect the PAN details of the concerned deductees within the time prescribed which caused the delay of 30 months. This clinching reason has nowhere been proved either before the Assessing Officer or in lower appellate proceedings. Faced with this situation, we conclude that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the impugned penalty in these peculiar facts and circumstances. The assessee fails in instant sole substantive ground therefore.

3 ITA No.147/PUN/2018 4. Delay of 5 days in filing of instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (G. D. PADMAHSHALI) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 10th October, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The CIT- TDS, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.