SELMA MEMOIRAL TRUST,THE NILGIRIS vs. JCIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2970/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 June 2018AY 2008-095 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of not having an experienced person locally was not a valid reason for the significant delay in filing TDS returns. The Tribunal found the facts similar to previous High Court judgments that upheld penalties for such failures.

What were the facts?

The assessee-trust, which administers a school, failed to deduct tax at source and file e-TDS returns for two assessment years. There was a delay of over five years in filing these returns, which was discovered during a departmental inspection.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied for failure to deduct tax at source and file e-TDS returns within the stipulated time is justified, despite the assessee's explanation of lack of local expertise.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(k),Section 206C(3),Section 200(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 07.06.2018Pronounced: 11.06.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Coimbatore, dated 31.08.2017, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

2.

Smt. Nithya Sankaran, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee-trust established and administering a school in the name of M/s Riverside Public School. According to the Ld. representative, omission to deduct tax and filing of e-TDS returns were not intentional but it was beyond the control of the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee deducted tax from the rent payment and also salary payments to the Principal at the end of the financial year. Tax so deducted was paid to the Government account. However, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee has filed TDS returns in the last quarter of the year and the inspection was carried on at the premises of the assessee on 07.10.2013. According to the Ld. representative, after verifying the relevant records, there was a demand of ₹60,529/- which was admittedly paid by the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the omission to file quarterly returns is only circumstantial and not intentional. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee had to engage expertise from outside for filing the e-returns. Since there was no experienced person for filing e-TDS return at Kotagiri, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee had to engage persons from Coimbatore for filing the returns. After the inspection, the assessee has filed the returns.

3.

On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a delay of more than five years in filing the returns for both the assessment years, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied penalty. Placing reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Central Scientific Instruments Organisation v. CIT (TDS), the Ld. D.R. submitted that on identical circumstances, the High Court found that the penalty was rightly imposed. A similar view was also taken by Allahabad High Court in Raja Harpal Singh Inter College v. Principal CIT (2016) 386 ITR 327.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. From the material available on record it appears that the assessee deducted tax from the rent paid to the landlord and salary paid to the Principal. The assessee also claims that the payments were made to the Government account. However, e-TDS statements were not filed within the stipulated time. Admittedly, there was a delay of five years in filing the e-TDS statements for both the assessment years.

The explanation of the assessee that there was no experienced person at Kotagiri and it had to engage somebody from Coimbatore for filing of return appears to be not a valid reason for not filing the TDS returns.

5.

When the assessee was required to deduct tax and file the statement as required under Section 206C(3) of the Act within the time prescribed under Section 200(3) of the Act, the assessee is expected to comply with the mandates of the Income-tax Act.

Kotagiri is not far away from Coimbatore. It may not be required for the assessee to wait till an inspection was carried out by the TDS Wing of the Department. From the very fact that the failure of the assessee for not filing the TDS was found during the inspection of TDS Wing of the Department, it appears that the assessee has not taken any step for filing the returns. Under similar circumstances, the Punjab & Haryana High Court High Court in Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (supra) has confirmed the penalty levied.

Since the facts and circumstances of the case are similar, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed.

Order pronounced on 11th June, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)

All 249 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(k) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →