CANARA BANK,PUNE vs. ADDITINAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-10, Pune, dated 14-03-2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Assessee raised a solitary ground and the same is extracted as under :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A)-10, Pune erred in holding that for a penalty imposed u/s.272A(2)(k) the ordinary effect of section 273B does not apply as the said penalty has not found place in section 273B of the I.T. Act and only penalty impossible u/s.272A(2)(c) and (d) have found place and accordingly, the appellant cannot get benefit of section 273B, even if, there are reasonable grounds to explain the reason behind inordinate delay in filing the quarterly TDS statement as envisaged u/s.200(3) of the I.T. Act,”

wherein the assessee stated that “due to busy ending schedule, closure

of annual accounts and various annual compliance reports, the Ld.CIT(A)’s order received was inadvertently placed in a wrong file by the staff and was located late, causing delay of 48 days in filing the appeal”.

On considering the contents of the affidavit, we find there is reasonable

cause for filing the appeal by the assessee with a delay of 48 days.

Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

of e-TDS u/s.200(3) in Form No.26Q for the Ist quarter of F.Y. 2010-11

on 18-07-2001 as against the statutory due date of 15-07-2010. Thus,

there was delay of 368 days. AO vide his order dated 26-12-2012

invoked the provisions of section 272A(2)(k) and levied penalty of Rs.36,800/- @ Rs.100/- for each day of delay and treated the assessee

as assessee in default.

before the CIT(A). There was also a delay of 5 months in preferring the appeal which was condoned by the CIT(A). However, coming to the issue of penalty on merits, the CIT(A) after discussing the provisions of section 273B rejected the submissions made by the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied by the AO.

before the Tribunal with the solitary ground extracted above.

“8. The case of the assessee before us is that the delay in submission of e-TDS return was because of the problem of awareness of Return Preparation Utility, which was updated by NSDL in the first year, i.e. assessment year 2011-12. Because of the requirement of e-TDS furnishing of TDS statement arising for the first time in assessment year 2011-12, there were problems faced by the assessee and hence, the delay in filing quarterly TDS return late. We hold that the assessee had reasonable cause in not furnishing the same in time and in view of the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we hold that the assessee is not liable to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same.”

adjudicated by the Tribunal, we hold that assessee is not liable to penalty u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act. Accordingly, the solitary ground

raised by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 09th day of May, 2018. (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद"य

पुणे Pune; "दनांक Dated : 09th May, 2018 सतीश

आदेश आदेश क" आदेश आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ"ेिषत

अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

स"यािपत "ित //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune