EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Aurangabad dated 26-11-2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

The brief facts in this regard are that during the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the ld. A.O that the prescribed person responsible for deduction of tax under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act was required to prepare and deliver or caused to be delivered a Quarterly Statement u/s 200 clause (3) of the Act within such time and as per the form as Executive Engineer, Latur A.Y. 2012-13 prescribed under Rule 31A of the Income-tax Rules 1962. The ld. A.O while issuing notice u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 274 brought to the notice of the assessee deductor that as per the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act, the deductor was required to prepare and deliver or caused to be delivered a quarterly statement u/s 200 clause (3) within the prescribed time. It was also brought to the notice of the assessee deductor that as per the records of the Department, the following returns were found to be filed late pertaining to the financial year 2010-11.

A notice was duly served on the assessee. However, there was no compliance of the said notice nor any explanation was put-forth by the assessee before the ld. A.O explaining the default. In these circumstances, the ld. A.O invoked the provisions of sec. 272A clause (2) sub-clause (k) of the Act r.w.s. 200 clause (3) and imposed the penalty for delay in delivering the TDS statements.

At the first appellate stage, assessee filed written submissions through its Authorised Representative. In the said submissions, the assessee contended that the delay in filing TDS statements is only due to the delay in collecting PANs from all the deductees and further the main reasons are late receipt of grants/funds from the higher authorities and non-receipt of book identification numbers required for filing forms No. 24Q which led to further delay in filing the form No. 24Q statements. The assessee further submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that as a Government Organization it has tremendous

Before us also, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. From the office records it is clear that the notice was served on the registered address given by the assessee.

We have perused the material on record and the orders of the subordinate authorities as well. We have heard the submissions of the ld. D.R in this case. Admittedly, there is a breach inviting penalty u/s 272A clause (2) sub-clause (k) of the Act and the assessee has accepted that there was a delay in furnishing TDS statements as required by the Act. Recourse to section 273B should have been resorted to if the assessee was able to substantiate reasonable cause for such delay. We have gone through the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and find that there is a meticulous examination of facts by him and none of the grounds taken by the assessee for explaining the default was substantiated before the ld. CIT(A). In such scenario, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which are hereby upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.