SOIL & WATER CONSEVATION DEPARTMENT, LATUR,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), RANGE-NASHIK, NASHIK

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Department of Government of Maharashtra. The TDS Officer, i.e, ITO (TDS), Nanded noticed that the appellant department failed to file the Quarterly TDS statements as prescribed u/s.200(3) within the time as prescribed under Rule 31A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Accordingly, notice u/s.272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 274 was issued to the appellant department show causing the appellant as to why penalty should not be levied on the appellant for failure to file deliver the Quarterly TDS statements. In response to the show cause notice, it is submitted that the Quarterly TDS statements could not be filed for reasons of non-availability of PAN of the deductee etc. Rejecting the above contention, the TDS Officer vide order dated 15.09.2014 proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.1,08,100/- u/s.272A(2)(k) r.w.s.200(3) of the Act.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities prayed for confirmation of the penalty.

We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the penalty levied by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is sustainable in the eye of law. The AO vide order dt. 15.09.2014 levied penalty u/s.272(2)(k) r.w.s.200(3) of the Act. However, it is an undisputed fact that no loss has been caused to the Revenue by the action of the assessee. There may have been procedural lapse on the part of the assessee however, due to such procedural lapse no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. The explanation of the appellant that the Quarterly returns could not be uploaded because of difficulty in obtaining the PAN of the deductees’ is a plausible explanation, cannot be rejected in the absence of any material to the contrary. The lapse, if any, is merely a technical or venial breach of provisions of law which does not attract levy of penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd.(2000)244 ITR 417. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the penalty.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 03rd day of June, 2024.