ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TTDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.9.2014 in Appeal No.CIT(A)-14/TDS-1/IT-29/2012-13, for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11. The penalty under dispute was levied by the Addl. CIT(TDS), Mumbai vide order dated 28.12.2011 u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter). None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee-appellant when the appeal was called out for hearing, nor is there any adjournment application filed on record.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) before us. It is not in dispute that the assessee deducted the TDS at the earliest point of time. However, there is a delay in filing of the quarterly returns, the details of which are as under:

According to the assessee, the delay occurred due to the compliance guidelines as framed by NSDL – mandatory quoting of 85% deductees Correct Pan numbers, etc., which were newly introduced at that time. He further submits that the delay in filing the return can be considered as a technical or venial breach of law for which penalty may not be levied. Further, according to the A.O. the assessee had promptly deposited tax in the Government account within the stipulated time as a law abiding assessee and the delay is not intentional but only due to the above explanation. It is an admitted fact that the TDS was deducted and the amount was deposited in the Government account well within the time. Though there is a delay in submitting the return, the reasons given thereto appears to be very cogent and reasonable. Further, even otherwise due to such delay in filing the return, no prejudice is caused to the Revenue, nor does the assessee stand to gain, and default cannot be attributed as intentional to such delay.

Under these circumstances, for these reasons, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee constitute a reasonable cause and consequently find that the orders of the (A.Y. 2010-11) Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Addl. CIT (TDS) authorities below cannot be sustained under law, and are liable to be set aside. We, therefore, record a finding accordingly and allow the appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. प�रणामतः �नधा�रती क� अपील �वीकृत क� जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on July 5th, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (Mahavir Singh) लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 05.07.2016 व.�न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,