KAILASH MAHAL CO. OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 2, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty was for delay in filing the quarterly TDS statement, not for failure to deduct or deposit TDS. Considering the assessee's bonafide impression of filing only an annual statement and lack of justification for the penalty, it was deemed not leviable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Kailash Mahal Co.Op. Hsg.Ltd., was levied a penalty for delay in submitting the quarterly TDS statement in Form No. 24Q for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee contended that this was the only year of default and they had filed an annual TDS statement.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) is leviable for delayed filing of quarterly TDS statement when the assessee had a bonafide belief of filing an annual statement and no specific justification for the penalty was provided.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 59 Mumbai dated 08/01/2015 which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 26/12/2011.
In this appeal, the point of dispute relates to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer of Rs.49,779/- under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for delay in submission of quarterly statement of TDS in Form No.24Q, which was required to be filed in terms of section 200(3)r.w.r 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962(in short ‘the Rules’). In para 2.1 of the order of the CIT(A), the delay has been enumerated and as per the CIT(A) the non-compliance by the assessee deserves to be penalised in terms of section 272A(2)(k) of the Act .
Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the instant assessment year is the only year, where assessee had defaulted in submission of the quarterly statement of TDS and, it was further pointed out that assessee had indeed furnished an annual statement of TDS. It was, therefore, contended that considering the circumstances of the case, penalty levied by the income tax authorities be set-aside.
On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has defended the imposition of penalty as per reasons assigned by the CIT(A), which we have already noted above and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
5. Having considered the rival stands, it is quite clear that the penalty in question is for delay in submission of the quarterly statement of TDS in form No.24Q, and not for the compliance requiring deduction of tax at source and deposit of the same with the Government Treasury. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the past or in the subsequent years there was no occasion for the assessee to deduct tax at source and in fact, even during the year under consideration it deducted tax at source on payment made to a contractor only. For this reason, the assessee was under a bonafide impression that it was to file only the Annual statement of TDS, which it did. In our considered opinion, having regard to the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances, in the present case, no penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act is leviable. In fact, a perusal of the orders of the authorities below reveal that no particular justification is made out to levy penalty. It is a well settled proposition that no penalty can be levied merely because there is a provision in law. Therefore, in our view, the penalty levied of Rs. 49,779/-deserves to be deleted. We hold so.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026