DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICE,,UDGIR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

Section 200 of the Act lays down the duty of the person deducting tax, which reads as under:-

Under section 200(1) of the Act, it is provided that any person deducting any sum in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Under section 200(2) of the Act, any person being an employer, as referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 of the Act shall pay, within the prescribed time, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Under sub-section (2A) of the Act, it is provided that where the sum has been deducted in accordance with foregoing provisions of the Chapter, by the office A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Collector Office Vs. JCIT, TDS, Range, Nashik (A)

In other words, any deductor deducting any sum on or after first day of April, 2005 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter has the following duties i.e. after paying the tax deducted at source credit to the Central Government, the TDS statements within prescribed time shall be prepared and filed. Rules 31A of the Rules provide the time limit for deposit of the tax deducted statement as per section 200(3) of the Act. The TDS statements are to be deposited quarterly i.e. quarter ending 30th June, 30th September, 31st December and 31st March of each financial year and the due date for furnishing the TDS statements is 15th July for the first quarter, 15th October for the second quarter, 15th January for the third quarter and 15th May of the immediately following financial year for the fourth quarter i.e. 31st March. The said statements could be furnished either in paper form or electronically. However, subsequent to the amendment by IT (Sixth) Amendment Rules, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2010, it was provided that furnishing of statements electronically in accordance with the format and standards prescribed became mandatory. The deductor in the said statement of tax deducted at source was compulsorily required to quote its tax deduction and Collection Account Number i.e. TAN number. Further, quote its Permanent Accountant Number except in the case where the deductor was office of Government and also quote PAN number of all the deductees.

In view of various provisions of the Act, as pointed out above, the substitution was made by Income-tax (Sixth) Amendment Rules, 2010 and was applicable for the financial year 2010-11. Since e- compliance of TDS returns was introduced in the said financial year, there was time and again amendments/corrections in order to make system of filing TDS returns user-friendly. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that there were about 18 amendments/corrections in this regard. In the present set of appeals before us admittedly, there was default in furnishing e-TDS statements late for the respective quarters by different assessee, but all relating to assessment year 2011-12. The question which arises for adjudication before us is whether in such cases where e- TDS was made compulsory for the instant assessment year and where the software was not user-friendly and required amendments at the end of the Government itself from time to time and the compliance being a complex procedure introduced for the first time and where originally the deductors were not in default in depositing the paper TDS returns, does the assessee deductor have reasonable cause for not furnishing the said e-TDS returns in time. In this regard, reference is to be made to the provisions of section 273B of the Act, where it has been provided that in case a person establishes or proves that he had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions of various sections provided in section 273B of the Act, then no penalty shall be imposable on such person for the said failure. Reading of section 273B of the Act shows that under it, the Section refers to along with many other sections clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act. What is relevant for adjudication before us is section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty under section 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of said section, then the section provides that such a person shall not be liable to the penalty imposable for the said failure i.e. under section 272A(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) in the case of several assessee before us has wrongly come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard.

Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions of the Act was complicated and difficult and in the absence of any technical support in this regard, default if any, in furnishing the TDS returns late should be condoned. Another plea raised by some of the assessee was that where the tax deducted at source was not paid in time, e-TDS returns as such could not be filed and hence, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing e-TDS returns in time and as such, no merit in levy of penalty. Another plea raised before us is that charging of fees for each day of default and then, restricting the same to the tax deducted at source was not correct. One another aspect of reasonableness was that in case the returns for quarter 1 was filed belatedly, then the returns for consequent quarters also got delayed for no default and as such, no penalty was leviable for such quarters. Different learned Authorized Representatives appearing before us has made reference to the decisions of various Benches of Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Raja Harpal Singh Inter College's case (supra) and Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Central Scientific Instruments Organization's case (supra). One last aspect pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that the CIT(A) has acknowledged that there was reasonable cause in not furnishing e-TDS returns in time. However, no benefit of the same was given to the assessee because the CIT(A) was of the view that the provisions of section 273B of the Act do not cover penalty leviable under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act.

First of all, we shall deal with the last submission of the assessee that under the provisions of section 273B of the Act, the provisions of section 272A(2)(k) of the Act are referred and in case the person establishes its case of reasonable cause, then no penalty is to be leviable for such defaults. The case put up by the assessee was that where tax was deducted at source and merely because e- TDS statements/returns were not filed in time does not result in any loss of revenue and hence, no merit in levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The claim of deduction of tax deducted at source, its payment to the Treasury to the Government and thereafter, the credit to be allowed to the deductee of tax deducted from his account, all work on the principle that the tax is collected and deposited in the account of the Government as income is earned. In other words, the said provisions of tax deducted are advance payments of tax as you earn the income. Taxes are deducted by the deductor out of payments due to the deductee and such tax deducted is the income of deductee. The credit for tax deduction at source would be allowed to the deductee only after the tax deducted at source is deposited in A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Collector Office Vs. JCIT, TDS, Range, Nashik (A)

The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in HMT Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 274 ITR 544/[2004] 140 Taxman 606 had held that where the tax deducted at source had been paid in time and the necessary returns in respect thereto were filed in time with the Income-tax Department, on mere late issue of tax deduction certificate, there was no loss to the Revenue and the delay in furnishing the tax deduction certificate was held to be merely technical or venial in nature and penalty levied under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act was deleted. It may be clarified herein that earlier under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act, penalty was leviable where the tax deduction certificate was not issued in time. However, by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1-4-2005, it has been provided that where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered copy of statement within time specified in section 200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act, then he shall pay by way of penalty sum of Rs. 100/- for every day of default. It is further provided under the said sub-section that the amount of penalty for failure shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. It is further provided that no penalty shall be levied under clause (a) for failure to furnish the statement under section 200(3) of the Act or proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act, on or after first day of July, 2012.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed strong reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Raja Harpal Singh Inter College's case (supra) for the proposition that where the e-TDS statement was not filed in time, then penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been held to be leviable. In the facts of the said case before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee was deducting the tax at source but had not filed the e-TDS returns for five successive assessment years starting from 2008-09 to 2012-13. The assessee failed to furnish any explanation before the Assessing Officer for the said default and only on the last date, it was pointed out that since the Principal of college had joined recently, it would take some time to collect the records for filing the e-TDS statements. The assessee however, failed to comply with notice and the Assessing Officer held the assessee to be liable for levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the assessee for the first time offered an explanation that prior to joining regular Principal in the college on 25-1-2010, only officiating Principal had been working, who did not have idea of e-TDS statements and requirement of filing the same. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority had accepted the explanation offered by the assessee and imposed penalty only from 1-4-2010 though regular Principal had joined the college on 25-1-2010. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of assessee as no explanation was furnished for non-furnishing TDS statements in time. The Hon'ble High Court thus, in this regard observed that the requirement of filing e-TDS statements in time could not be overlooked. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble High court held that it cannot be urged by the Counsel for the assessee that no penalty could have been imposed for non- filing e-TDS returns in time since it had not resulted in any loss to the Revenue. The Hon'ble High Court further took note of the fact that before the Assessing Officer, no explanation was offered. 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 appellant that regular Principal assumed charge on 25-1-2010, was accepted and the penalty was imposed after that date. The appeal of the assessee in this regard was thus, dismissed.

Applying the said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Raja Harpal Singh Inter College's case (supra), there is no merit in the plea of the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that the Hon'ble High Court has laid down the proposition that in every case of default in filing the e-TDS statements in time, penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act is leviable. The Hon'ble High Court in an appeal filed by the assessee dismissed the plea of assessee that no penalty is leviable but has upheld the orders of authorities A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Collector Office Vs. JCIT, TDS, Range, Nashik (A)

Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue is on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Central Scientific Instruments Organization's case (supra). In the facts of the said case, the assessee had filed TDS returns in Form No. 26Q belatedly after expiry of 10 years from prescribed time limit and the assessee had submitted that he was unaware of provisions of section 200(3) of the Act. The assessee had deposited the tax to the Central Government at relevant time, however, the assessee failed to furnish TDS returns. The delay in filing the returns in prescribed form for all four quarters was 6463 days in assessment year 2009- 10 and in assessment year 2010-11 for all four quarter was 4966 days and in assessment year 2011-12, the delay was 3474 days. In view of the factual aspects of the case, where the delay is so huge and in the absence of any explanation of the assessee, we find no merit in the reliance placed upon on such decision by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

On the other hand, various Benches of Tribunal have time and again held that where there was case of reasonableness, there was no merit in levying the penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Thus, in order to adjudicate the issue before us, we accept the case of reasonable cause as relevant to section 273B of the Act put up by the assessee in the respective cases in the appeals before us, which admittedly relate to different quarters of assessment year 2011-12. Where for the first time, there was requirement of e-TDS furnishing of TDS statement and since there were certain complications in e- filing of TDS returns because of system failure, which admittedly, was amended 18 times by the Department, the delay in furnishing the said returns late could not be attributed to the assessee. The onus was upon the authorities to provide platform for easy compliance to newly introduced provisions of the Act. Where such facilities could not be provided by the authorities and the technical support not being available to small assessees, who are in appeal before us, then the delay in furnishing the e-TDS returns late should be liberally construed.

Another issue raised in some of the appeals is that where all quarterly returns relating to assessment year 2011-12 were filed on one date i.e. there was default in furnishing the returns for each of the quarters late, the case of the assessee was that because of overlapping default, penalty at best should be restricted to quarter No. 1 and no penalty should be levied for the subsequent quarters. We find merit in the above plea of the assessee and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty leviable to first quarter which is in default and for the overlapping default, no penalty is to be levied under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of assessee in this regard and work out the penalty accordingly.

The issue arising in other appeals before us is identical and following our directions in the paras hereinabove, the Assessing Officer in the case of individual assessee has to verify the claim of assessee and work out penalty, if any, leviable accordingly after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above.' 7. Similarly, the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Argus Golden Trades India Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 479/165 ITD 318 and Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Addl. CIT [2011] 16 taxmann.com 318/[2012] 52 SOT 142 has deleted the penalty levied u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haryana Distillery Ltd. (supra), the question arose whether since on filing belated returns/statements, Revenue had not suffered any loss because tax deducted was already deposited on time and there was mere technical or venial breach to provisions contained in Act for submitting return/statements of TDS.

Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements which are in conformity with the facts and circumstances in the present case before us and following the same parity of reasoning, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete penalty from the hands of the assessee.” Unquote .

In the present case the appellant had deposited TDS within time. The appellant could not file the Quarterly statements due to the reasons mentioned in earlier paras. We are of the opinion that there was reasonable cause for delay. Hence respectfully following the ITAT Pune Bench Decision (supra), we direct the AO to delete the Penalty. Accordingly, ground of the Assessee is allowed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th July, 2022.