BHURMAL BAXIRAM JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT TDS, THANE

Firstly, we shall take up the appeals filed by the assessee in the case of Shri Bhurmal Baxiram Jain vide to 4807/M/2016 for the AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12.

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought my attention to the table given in para 3 (page 2) of the CIT (A)‟s order and submitted that there is a delay in filing quarterly statements of TDS u/s 200(3) read with Rule 31A of the IT Rules, 1962. Delay for the AY 2009-10 varied from 648 days to 983 days; for the AY 2010- 11, the delay varied from 283 days to 618 days and for the AY 2011-12 the delay is 361 days. In this regard, it is the submission of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the assessee deducted the TDS as per the procedure and the same was remitted to the Government account in time. However, there is a delay in furnishing the required statements of the said TDS to the TDS officials. In connection with the said delay, Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. There was none to represent the assessee during the assessment proceedings. However, before the CIT (A) assessee made written submissions. According to the same, the accountant of the assessee is responsible for delayed in furnishing of the statements and lack of relevant knowledge to the assessee in these matters should constitute a „reasonable cause‟. After considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty for all the three quarters in question. The contents of para 11 of the CIT (A)‟s order is relevant in this regard and the relevant lines from the said para reads as under:- “11......Therefore, the reasonable cause claimed by the appellant is not borne out from the facts of the case. The reliance of the appellant on the case of Hon‟ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Royal Metal Printers Pvt Ltd (supra), does not help the appellant because in that case on the facts of the case it was held that the appellant had reasonable cause for delay in filing TDS returns. As observed by the AO due to delay in filing the TDS returns by the deductors, the deductees have to suffer a lot as they do not get credit of TDS till the time TDS statements are uploaded by the deductors. In view of the detailed facts discussed above, it is held that the AO has rightly imposed penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the IT Act in this case amounting to Rs. 46,350/- and the same is therefore confirmed.” 4. From the above, it is evident that the reasons given by the assessee were not found as „reasonable cause‟. 5. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld Counsel for the assessee did not bring any other additional reasons or evidence for the furtherance of his arguments which is good enough for reversal of the order of the CIT (A). Considering the same, I am of the opinion, the decision filed by the assessee are not on the reasons given by the assessee in the instant cases. Therefore, in my considered view, the order of the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised