EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 2(3),

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1272/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 April 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided explanations for the delay for the first time before it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of these explanations.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed quarterly TDS returns beyond the prescribed time limit. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) as no explanation for the delay was provided. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied for delayed filing of TDS returns is justified without considering the assessee's explanations for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM)

For Appellant: Ms. Devika S. Tendolkar
For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Hearing: 13.4.2017Pronounced: 13.4.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 2.1.2015 passed by the learned CIT(A)-59, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011- 12.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ` 43,700/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act.

3.

The assessee’s authorized representative, Shri Sunil Gujar has filed written submission before us. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record.

4.

We noticed that the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice for levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act, as the assessee had filed quarterly TDS returns beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 206/206C of the Act. Since

2 M/s. Export Inspection Agency the assessee did not file any submission explaining the delay, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ` 43,700/-. Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not appear and hence the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

5.

As noticed earlier, learned AR of the assessee has filed a letter dated 5.4.2017, wherein he has explained the reasons for the delay. It can be noticed that the assessee is filing the explanations for the first time before the Tribunal, i.e., there was no occasion for the tax authorities to examine the explanations furnished by the assessee with regard to the delay in filing the TDS returns. Hence we are of the view that the above said explanations filed by the assessee need examination at the end of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the issue afresh by duly considering the explanations furnished by the assessee. After providing adequate opportunity of being head to the assessee, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 13.4.2017.

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 →