THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) should not be levied. This was based on the assessee's reasons for delay, the fact that similar proceedings for earlier years were dropped, and that the assessee was not a habitual defaulter.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust running a hospital, failed to file quarterly TDS statements for AY 2011-12 within the stipulated period. The AO levied penalties for this delay, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty for delayed filing of TDS statements is justified when reasonable cause is shown and there is a history of similar defaults being dropped.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 08.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 4.9.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-14, Mumbai dated 25.6.2014 for the assessment year 2011-2012.
In this appeal, assessee raised nine grounds in toto. The only issue that emanates from all the grounds relates to the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Briefly stated relevant facts in this regard are that assessee is a Trust running hospital for philanthropic purposes. During the scrutiny proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee has not filed the quarterly TDS statements for the AY 2011-12 within stipulated period and specified forms. Considering the same, AO levied the penalty for the default of filing of TDS return in Form No.24Q and Form No.26Q. The said returns were filed belatedly to the TDS authorities. The details of delay are given in para 3.1 of the CIT (A)‟s order. AO levied the penalty of Rs. 54,100/- for default relating to the salary return and levied penalty of Rs. 18,100/- in respect of the statement relating to other than the salaries. Assessee submitted that the lack of proper manpower, infrastructure and the high cost in employing the accounting personnel are the reasons for the said delay. AO and the CIT (A) rejected the same and the penalty is confirmed.
More judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)
- Maliwal Bherulal Jagnnath HUF, Jamnagar vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), JamnagarITA 855/RJT/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Colours Multimedia Private Limited, Delhi vs ITO, Ward 6(1), DelhiITA 6670/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2026AY 2009-10
- Kaushalya Infrastructure Development… vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), KolkataITA 180/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed13 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016
- Kaushalya Infrastructure Development… vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), TDS, KolkataITA 179/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: Disposed13 Apr 2026AY 2014-2015
- Kaushalya Infrastructure Development… vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), TDS, KolkataITA 178/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed13 Apr 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026