Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order under section 272A(2)(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Nagpur on 26.06.2018 for the F.Y. 2011-12. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) has erred in law and on facts in levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(f) of Rs.86,838/- towards non submission of Form 15G / 15H.
2) The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee being very small means person running small business. The assessee had engaged the professional and handed over the notices to than professional to present before the Ld. CIT(TDS). The assessee came to know of non attendance only the order levy of penalty was received by him thus the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not attending the proceedings.
3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) erred in law & facts that the penalty levied pertains to FY 2011-12 for which the first notice was issued only on 15th December 2017. The Ld. CIT(TDS) failed to note that the levy of penalty if any should be imposed within a reasonable period from the end of the assessment year and therefore the levy of penalty after a long period of time was wholly unsustainable and thus the levy of penalty is to be quashed.
4) The law is well settled that an order imposing penalty is a result of quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty .should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. No penalty should be imposed if the assesee was acting in honest and genuine belief in a particular manner. As held be the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure T&’ perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or when the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.
5) The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.
6) The assesee craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any of the grounds at the time of or before the hearing.”
At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed on behalf of assessee.
We heard the ld.Departmental Representative of the Revenue virtually and perused the records.
Findings &Analysis : 4. The only issue before us is Penalty under section 272A(2)(f) of the Act levied by ld.CIT(TDS). On perusal of the order of ld.CIT(TDS), it is observed that assessee had not deposited Form No.15G/15H submitted by the deductees. The assessee as a deductor was required to deliver the copies of Form No.15G/15H to the ld.CIT(TDS), on or before 7th day of the month, following the month in which the declaration was furnished to him. The list of the Form No.15G/15H not submitted by the assessee is as under :
During the proceedings before the ld.CIT(TDS), the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for non- submission. Even before us the assessee has not submitted reason for non-submission of Form No.15G/15H. Assessee has merely stated that he is a small businessman. However, this is not a sufficient reason for non-submission of Form No.15G/15H. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the penalty levied by ld.CIT(TDS). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th Nov, 2023.