M/S PALACE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1647/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 November 2018AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not provide evidence of supplying the soft copy, the information was supplied in hard copy within the stipulated period. It was not a case of intentional avoidance of compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee was penalized for failing to supply information in electronic form/CD as required by the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed to have supplied the information in both hard and soft copies.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) is leviable when information is supplied in hard copy but evidence for soft copy is lacking, and there was no intentional avoidance of compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.09.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]-2, Amritsar Camp at Chandigarh agitating the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The sole reason for the levy of the above penalty is that the assessee failed to supply the requisite information in the electronic form/CD as required by the Assessing Officer. However, the case of the assessee has been that it supplied the requisite information not only in the hard copy but also in the soft copy as was demanded by the Assessing Officer. Though there is no denial of the receipt of the requisite information by the Department in writing/hard copy, however, the observation of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee

ITA 1647/CHD/2017 Page 2 of 2

failed to supply the requisite information in soft copy/C.D. On the

other hand, the assessee, right from the beginning has pleaded that it

has supplied information both in hard copy and soft copy but could

not furnish the evidence of supplying the soft copy to the concerned

authorities.

3.

We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the

assessee has supplied the requisite information in writing/on hard

copy. Though the plea of the assessee is that it has also supplied the

information in soft copy/C.D. but the assessee could not furnish the

evidence in this respect, however, the fact that is proved on the file

that the requisite information, though in the hard copy was supplied

to the concerned authorities within the stipulated period. It is not a

case where the assessee has intentionally avoided the compliance of

the directions of the Assessing Officer. In view of this, we do not find it

a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 272(A)(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

The penalty levied by the lower authorities is, therefore, ordered to be

deleted.

4.

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.11. 2018. Sd/- Sd/-

(अ�नपूणा� गु�ता) (�ी संजय गग�) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

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

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →