KAILASH MAHAL CO. OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1687/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2016AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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?

Section 272A(2)(k),Section 200(3)

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Ripote
Hearing: 21/07/2016Pronounced: 21/09/2016

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.

2.

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 .

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

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 →