M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (LTU), DELHI

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are appeals filed by M/s. Oriental Insurance co. ltd (the assessee) against the order of the ld CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 27.01.2015 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2011-12, wherein, the penalty of Rs. 66000/- and Rs. 176200/- levied by the ld AO u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU), Delhi was confirmed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. That order of AO levying penalty u/s 272A (2)(k) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

2. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the non filing of TDS returns is merely a technical default and there is no loss to the Government exchequer.

3. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO of imposing penalty of Rs 66,000/- u/s 272A(2)(k) of Income Tax Act (for short “Act”).

4. That in view-of facts and circumstances of the case, the QIT(A) failed to appreciate that appellant had reasonable cause of hot filing of TDS return in time. Page | 1 M/s. Oriental Insurance co. ltd Vs JCIT (LTU) &2035/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2008-09 and 2011-12)

5. That in view of facts and circumstances of case, the CIT(A) failed to consider that the case of the appellant does not warrant levy of penalty in view of provisions of s 273B of Act.

6. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that throughout the appellant was under a bona fide belief that TDS returns have been filed.

7. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) failed to consider that appellant is otherwise regular in depositing TDS and filing TDS returns.

8. That the penalty levied is unjust, unlawful, and highly excessive. The penalty levied cannot be justified by any material-on record.

9. That all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record have not been properly considered and the judicially interpreted and the order passed is illegal and bad in law.”

3. Similar ground s were also raised for AY 2011-12.

4. The brief facts for Assessment Year 2011-12 of the case is that the assessee is an Insurance Company who filed its Form NO. 24Q on 04.01.2013 which was supposed to be filed on 15.06.2011 and thereby causing delay of 660 days and for this the ld JCIT, LTU issued a show cause notice on 18.03.2013 for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k). The assessee submitted that TDS has been deposited within the time, however because of the non-compliance of some taxation matters assigned to one of the professional who failed to perform his work in time, the delay has caused. It was further stated that the outside consultancy was kept assuring that the work has been completed, however when it came to the knowledge of the assessee that such work is pending the consultant was removed and the assessee filed the above return on its own. It was further stated that for last five years this is the only one instance where the return has been delayed for one quarter for each year. It was contended that the error is not intentional and has occurred due to oversight of the outside professional. It was further contended that as the tax deduction at source is deposited in time, there is no loss to the revenue and the above breach is merely technical