SMV AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay was due to the introduction of new procedures and the staff's lack of familiarity, considering it a venial breach. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed quarterly TDS returns late for the second and third quarters of FY 2005-06. The assessee's accounting staff were not conversant with the newly introduced e-TDS filing procedures.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty for late filing of TDS returns is leviable when the delay is caused by the introduction of new procedures and staff unfamiliarity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M.
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 14.01.2015 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 41, (“Ld. CIT(A)) New Delhi relating to AY 2006-07.
This matter relates to the levy of penalty for late filing of the quarterly returns relating to second and third quarter of the F.Y. 2005-06. It was explained before the Ld.CIT (A) that the accounting staff of the assessee were not conversant with the newly introduced procedures and that is the reason why the delay occurred. However, the Ld. CIT (A) did not agree with such an explanation while dismissing the appeal.
On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld.CIT (A) acknowledged the fact that in the F.Y. 2005-06 filing of e-TDS return was introduced and there was a change from filing annual returns to quarterly returns. It is further stated that in respect of the first quarter also there occurred some delay. It is, therefore, clear that with the introduction of the e-TDS return filing and change from the filing of annual returns to quarterly returns the delay was caused. There is nothing unacceptable in the explanation of the assessee that the cause of delay was the non- acquaintance of the staff with the newly introduced procedures. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the violation in this respect is a venial breach of law and does not attract penalty proceedings in the very first year of introduction of the new procedures. We, therefore, delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly.
More judgments on Section 271C
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2), MumbaiITA 5318/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2) Mumbai…ITA 5281/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026