M/S. PARVAR ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be carrying out the business of erecting, commissioning work and job work. It filed its return of TDS u/s 200(3) in Form No.26Q for the first quarter of

Financial Year 2010-11 on 13.09.2011 as against the statutory date

being 15.07.2010 resulting into delay in filing the return of income

of 425 days. AO accordingly considered the assessee to be in

default and thereafter vide order dt.27.02.2013 passed order u/s

272A(2)(k) / 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act levied penalty of

Rs.42,600/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the

matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.26.02.2016 (in appeal

No.PN/CIT(A)10/Addl.CIT(TDS)/263/14-15) dismissed the appeal of

the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in

appeal before us and has raised the following ground :

“On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that, as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held, the penalty imposed u/s 272A(2)(K)/ 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Income Tax Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act & the same has been imposed without fulfilling the basic principles of levy of penalty. The penalty so imposed be cancelled. Just in proper relief may be granted to the appellant.” . 3 Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO

and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee was not having

any qualified C.A. to look after the filing matters and further the

Managing Partner of the assessee was mostly out of City due to

medical reasons. He further submitted that though there was delay

in filing of e-TDS but the liability of TDS was deposited with the

Government Treasury along with interest. He further submitted

that the challan of TDS payment was not reflected in NSDL website

which was a pre-requisite to uphold the TDS return. Later on,

follow up with the Bank, it was noticed that due to the mistake of

Bank Officials, the amount paid towards TDS was wrongly credited

as advance tax and was reflected in NSDL website as advanced tax.

The rectification of the mistake took long time and therefore the

return was uploaded belatedly. He therefore submitted that there

was a reasonable cause for delay in filing the return and the same

be condoned. He also relied on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the

case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl.CIT (TDS) reported in

(2016) 74 Taxmann.com 240. He therefore submitted that the

penalty be deleted. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order

of lower authorities.

material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to

levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) / 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act. Before

us, it is assessee’s submission that the challan of TDS payment was

not reflected on NSDL website and due to the error on the part of

the Bank, the amount was wrongly credited as advance tax and its

rectification took long time. Further reflection of challan in the

NSDL website was a prerequisite to upload the TDS return. It is

also assessee’s submission that the TDS was paid in Government

treasury along with interest and that there is no loss of revenue.

The aforesaid contentions of the assessee have not been

controverted by Revenue. We, therefore, are of the view that

assessee has established and proved that it had a reasonable cause

for delay in filing the return of TDS. We find that the Co-ordinate

Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya

(supra) has held that Sec.273B covers the cases of levy of penalty

u/s 272A(2) and therefore in case a person establishes the case of

reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of said

section, then such person shall not be liable for penalty imposable

for failure u/s 272A(2) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision

of Pune ITAT, we are of the view that in the present case there was

a reasonable cause on the part of assessee resulting into the delay in filing the return of TDS and therefore the assessee is not liable for penalty. We therefore direct its deletion. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 20th day of June, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 20th June, 2018. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. The CIT-10, Pune, 4. The CIT (TDS), Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” / DR, ITAT, “A” Pune; 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स T// ///True True copy // True Copy //

व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.