Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SANJAY GARG
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee Bank of India against the order dated 16.10.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11.
Shri Mukesh Kumar, Sr. Manager vide letter dated 18.07.2016 has sought adjournment of the case. However, considering the nature of short issue involved in this case, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
The assessee has agitated the confirmation of levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act on account of failure to furnish quarterly TDS statement in time. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) noted that there was delay in filing the quarterly TDS statements.
In appeal, the LD. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. The assessee, thus, has come in appeal before us.
We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. We find that it has been pleaded before the lower authorities by the bank that the dealing staff was replaced on account of retirement and there was acute shortage of manpower and due to transfer period of employees in the month of May and June, the assessee bank could not undertake the submission of quarterly returns as per schedule. However, quarterly returns were submitted on 23.10.10 by deploying the staff beyond their normal working hours and also in holidays. It had there been prayed that due to the shortage of staff the quarterly returns could not be filed in time. However, the TDS deducted was deposited in time in government account and there was no loss of Revenue to the government in this respect. It has therefore been pleaded that there was a reasonable cause for non filing of the quarterly TDS returns in time.
5. Considering the above pleadings and overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there was some justifiable reason on the part of the bank due to shortage of staff for non filing of TDS quarterly returns in time. However, we find that the delay in filing the quarterly return ranges from 130 days to 373 days. Considering the pleadings of the assessee and the period of delay it can be reasonably assumed that at the most a lenient view can be taken for non filing of TDS returns in time at the most for a period of 6 months. However, delay more than 6 months cannot be considered as reasonable. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we order to delete the penalty up to the period of 180 days being considered as reasonable period for delay owing to the reasons given by the assessee. However, the 3 M/s. Bank of India delay beyond 180 days cannot be considered on account of any reasonable ground. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty up to the delay of 180 days in filing quarterly TDS returns. We confirm the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) for the delayed period beyond 180 days. Before parting with the order, we wish to make it clear that our above directions will not be taken as any bench mark in this respect in any other case. The penalty for delay up to 180 days, has been deleted considering the facts and circumstances of this case only it should not be considered as laying down of any proposition of law in this respect.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2016.