DIRECTOR, VJNT OBC & SBC WELFARE, MS, PUNE,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.906/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions of the Act was complicated and difficult and in the absence

M/S. L.N. KUNJIR,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1050/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. L.B. Kunjir, 52/1, Swanand Building, Shri Ram Hsg. Society, Chandan Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabfl9816E Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (Tds) Range, Pune

delay in uploading the requisite return i.e. TDS statement with the Department, hence there was default in compliance with the same. However, taxes were paid in time. Hence, there was no merit in levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The said plea of assessee was not accepted and the Assessing Officer has levied penalty

PRAVIN CHATARBHUJ BAJAJ,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.933/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pravin Chatarbhuj Bajaj, M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers, Plot No.F-68, Midc Area, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adhpb0700E Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (Tds) Range, Pune

delay of 455 days in filing the said quarterly return and hence, the proceedings under section 200(3) of the Act were initiated holding the assessee to be liable for levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) / 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act at Rs.45,500/-. 6. The plea of assessee before us is that he had reasonable

NISAR MEHBOOB ALAM KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2026/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nisar Mehboob Alam Khan N K Construction, Plot No.22, Motiwala Nagar, Opp. Mgm Hospital, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad …. Pan: Akgpk5798P Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tds Range, Nashik

delay in filing TDS returns late but the taxes were paid along with interest upto date; in such circumstances, applicability of provisions of section 273B of the Act. We find merit in the plea of assessee, wherein under section 273B of the Act, if the assessee established its case of reasonable cause, which had resulted in failure of assessee

MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE -NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2410/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Works Division, Parbhani-431 401 Tan : Nskm04669A .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

delayed beyond prescribed time. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT, reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 240 ( Pune Tribunal), wherein the issue of levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been elaborately dealt with and the issue of reasonable cause that has been also discussed in detail. This

DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICE,,UDGIR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.319/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : - Deputy Collector Office, The Jcit, Tds, Range, Main Road, Udgir, Tq.Udgir, Vs Nashik. Dist.Latur - 413517. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad Arising Out Of Assessing Officer’S Order Section 272A(2)(K) R.W.S 200(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2018. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 05/02/2014 Levied Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Delay In Filling Quarterly Statements Of Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) U/S.200(3) Of The Act.

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. ITA No.319/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Collector Office Vs. JCIT, TDS, Range, Nashik (A) 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance

POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE- NASHIK, NASIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1543 & 1544/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Post Master Head Post Office The I.T. Commissioner Of Parbhani, Vs I.T., (Tds), Range Nashik. Near Telephone Exchange, Shaniwar Bazar, Parbhani – 431401 Pan/Tan: Nskpo 2820 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Y.S.Nagla –Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The One Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Aurangabad For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively, Both Dated 20.08.2019. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1543/Pun/2019 For A.Y.2014-15 As Lead Case.

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 7. The only issue involved is levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for delay in submitting TDS statement. There is no dispute regarding delay in submitting the TDS statements. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The ITAT Pune in the case of Medical ITA Nos.1543 & 1544/PUN/2019 for A.Ys

POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS), RANGE-NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1543 & 1544/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Post Master Head Post Office The I.T. Commissioner Of Parbhani, Vs I.T., (Tds), Range Nashik. Near Telephone Exchange, Shaniwar Bazar, Parbhani – 431401 Pan/Tan: Nskpo 2820 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Y.S.Nagla –Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The One Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Aurangabad For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively, Both Dated 20.08.2019. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1543/Pun/2019 For A.Y.2014-15 As Lead Case.

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 7. The only issue involved is levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for delay in submitting TDS statement. There is no dispute regarding delay in submitting the TDS statements. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The ITAT Pune in the case of Medical ITA Nos.1543 & 1544/PUN/2019 for A.Ys

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay