The ACIT, TDS Circle,, Ahmedabad v. The Lok Prakashan Ltd.,, Ahmedabad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' (BEFORE S/SHRI T K SHARMA AND N S SAINI) ITA NO.2815/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2007-08) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS CIRCLE AHMEDABAD V/S LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED GUJARAT SAMACHAR BHAVAN KHANPUR AHMEDABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SMT. NEETA SHAH SENIOR DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI P M MEHTA O R D E R PER N S SAINI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DATED 10-07-2009 WHEREBY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED TH E PENALTY OF RS.4 47 200/- LEVIED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [THE ACT FO R SHORT]. 2 THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMIT ED COMPANY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PRINTING AND PUBLISH ING OF NEWSPAPER. THE ADDITIONAL CIT TDS RANGE AHMEDABAD ASCERTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEES RECORDS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURNS IN FORM NO.24Q I.E. QU ARTERLY STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF SALARY AND THE STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS OTHER TH AN SALARY IN FORM NO.26Q UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [THE ACT FOR SHORT]. THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER FROM THE RECORDS ASCERTAINED THAT THERE WAS A DEFAULT OF 2583 DAYS IN RESPECT OF FORM NO.24Q AND 1889 DAYS IN RESPECT OF FORM NO.26Q. 2 IN VIEW OF THIS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ISSU ED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING AS TO WHY PENALTY SHO ULD NOT BE LEVIED ON IT FOR SUCH DEFAULT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 272(2)(K). IN RESPONSE THEREOF THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. SH E THEREFORE LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR THE AFORESAID DEFAULT @ RS10 0/- PER DAY FOR THE DAYS OF DEFAULT NUMBERING 4472 DAYS (2583 + 188 9). 3 IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS FOLLO WS:- 5.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. THE DEF AULT FOR WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO RELATES TO LATE SUBMISSIO N OF FORM NO.24Q AND 26Q OF THE I.T. RULES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS L EVIED THE PENALTY IN A ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT BRINGING THE FACTS ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT COMMITTED THE DEFAULT WITHOUT A REASONABL E CAUSE. 5.6 THE LD. AR HAS ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT TH AT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT ONCE DEDUCTION OF TA X WAS MADE AND THE TAX WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT IT WAS NOT REQUI RED TO FILE THE FORM NO.24Q AND 26Q IN QUARTERS OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES I DO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE LD. AR THAT BELIEF SO ENTERTAINED BY THE APPELLANT CONSTITUTE A REASONABL E CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 273B OF THE ACT. SEC. 273B OF THE A CT LAYS DOWN THAT THE PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF A DEFAUL T RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS MENTIONED THEREIN IF THE PERSON OR THE A SSESSEE CONCERNED CAN SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DEFAULT IN QUESTION. SECTION 272(2)(K) FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC. 273B OF TH EACT. 5.5 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 HAS HELD THAT: THAT IN ORDER TO IMPOSE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CAR RY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDI NGS AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OB LIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CO NDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DIS REGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. THE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT PENALTY WILL NOT BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY 3 OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORI TY AND IS TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRI BED THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICA L OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN TH E MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 5.6 FURTHER HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARSIDDH CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. CIT 244 ITR 417 HAS HELD THAT:- IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS DE POSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WELL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THERE WAS NO LOSS OF REVENUE BUT ONLY A FAILURE TO FORWARD THE C ERTIFICATE AND SINCE THE TRIBUNAL ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE THE INFERENCE WAS BASED ON FACTS. THE TRIB UNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2 72(2)(G). NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE FOR REFERENCE. 5.7 THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSIT ION CLEAR CUT VIEW EMERGES THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT MANDATORY I N VENIAL BREACH OF LAW. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED THE REQUISITE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WITHIN TIME. THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE A PPELLANT FOR DELAY IN FILING OF FORM NO.24Q AND 26Q. THEREFORE UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272(2)(K) AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARSIDDH CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. CIT 244 ITR 417. 5.8 THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. 4 THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S MT. NEETA SHAH ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE ASS ESSEE TO DEDUCT THE ITDS AND PAY TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT BUT HAS ALSO THE DUTY OF FILING THE PRESCRIBED RETURN WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. SHE BUTTRESSED HER ARGUMENT BY REFERRIN G TO SECTION 200(3) AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THA T SECTION THAT ANY PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CHAPTER XVII SHALL A FTER PAYING THE TAX DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T WITHIN THE 4 PRESCRIBED TIME SHALL PREPARE QUARTERLY STATEMENT F OR THE PERIOD ENDING ON THE 30 TH JUNE THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER THE 31 ST DECEMBER AND THE 31 ST MARCH IN EACH FINANCIAL YEAR AND DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES OR THE PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH AUTHORITIES SUCH STATEMENT IN SU CH FORM AND VERIFIED IN SUCH MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH PART ICULARS AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. SHE ARGUED THAT THE WORDS USED IN THE SECTION IS SHALL AND NOT MAY AND THEREFORE IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS BY F ILING THE REQUIRED PARTICULARS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DO WHAT HAS BEEN REQUIRED OF IT BY THE STATUTE. THEREF ORE THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 5 SHE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF PENALTY PAS SED U/S 272A(2)(K) AT PAGE 1 PARA-3 STATES THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED THE QUARTERLY TDS RETURNS IN FORM NO.24Q AND 26Q LATE W ITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR THE DELAY. SHE ARGUED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONDONED UNLESS THE RE ASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN IS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF A CONDO NATION APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE. AS NO REASONS FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY WERE FILED THEREFORE THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED ON THE A SSESSEE. 6 SHE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE HEADING OF SECTION 2 00 STATES THAT DUTY OF PERSON DEDUCTING TAX. THUS THE ACT P ROVIDES FOR DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE QUARTERLY RETURNS FOR THE T AX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY WAS RIGH TLY LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. 7 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) HAS STATED AT PAGE 3 PARA-2.1 OF HIS ORDER THAT DEDUCTION OF TDS IS NOT DEFAULTED 5 AND ALSO THERE IS NO DELAY IN PAYING THE AMOUNT TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND HENCE THE DELAY IN SUBMITTIN G QUARTERLY RETURN IS ONLY A TECHNICAL MATTER AND THERE IS NO L OSS OF REVENUE OWING TO SUCH DELAY IS NOT CORRECT AS THE SECTION PROVIDES FOR NO DISCRETION FOR THE SAME AND FOR THE DELAY IN SUBMIT TING THE QUARTERLY RETURNS THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. 8 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT PARA-2.2 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE-3 THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT THERE WAS NO D ELIBERATE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID COMP LIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DUE TO NON-AWARENES S OF THE PROVISIONS BY DIRECTORS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF EXPERTISE OF PROFESSIONAL / SAL ARIED EMPLOYEES IS ALSO NOT CORRECT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED CO MPANY AND IS ASSISTED BY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS IN COMPLYING WI TH THE VARIOUS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. 9 SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE-4 PARA-5.5 OF THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER AND PO INTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE P ENALTY IN A ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT BRINGING THE FACTS ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMITTED THE DEFAULT WITHOUT A REASON ABLE CAUSE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY I N FILING OF THE RETURN WAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PEN ALTY LEVIED ON THIS GROUND. 10 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER REFERRED TO PARA-5.6 AT PAGE-4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND POINTED OU T THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT ONCE DED UCTION OF TAX WAS MADE AND WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURNS IN FORM NOS.24Q AND 26 Q IN THE QUARTERS OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUS E WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. SHE ARGUED THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE A DEFENSE I N THE CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY FOR INFRACTION OF LAW. 11 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) IN PARA-5.7 AT PAGE-5 OF THE ORDER HAS STATED THAT LEVY OF PENA LTY IS NOT MANDATORY IN VENIAL BREACH OF LAW. SHE ARGUED THAT THE FILING OF THE RETURNS WAS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A VENIAL BREACH OF LAW. THEREFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THE PENALTY FOR THE SAID REASON. 12 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SHRI P M MEHTA REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 13 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FORM OF QUARTERLY RETURNS WAS PRESCRIBED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2009 ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 01-10-2009 AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HA VE FILED THE RETURNS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. FURTHER IT WAS HIS ARGUMENT THAT AS THE AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT WITH EFFECT FROM A SPECIF IED DATE I.E. 01- 10-2009 AND NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OF ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE SAME CANNOT BE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. 7 14 IN THE REJOINDER SMT. NEETA SHAH LEARNED SENIO R DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TH AT FORM 24Q FOR FILING QUARTERLY RETURN OF TDS UNDER SECTION (1 ) AND (1A) OF SECTION 192 AND FORM NO 26Q IN RESPECT OF OTHER CAS ES OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE RULE 31A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES INSERTED BY INCOME TAX (TENTH AMENDMENT ) RU LES 2005 DATED 30.3.2005 (W.E.F. 30.3.2005) AND THEREFORE TO SAY SO THAT AS NO FORMS WERE PRESCRIBED FOR THE FILING OF THE QUARTER LY RETURNS OF TDS DEDUCTED BEFORE 1.10.2009 AND SO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RETURNS WAS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. 15 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AS PER THE PROVISI ONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER XVII OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY D EDUCTED THE TAX AND ALSO PAID THE TAX SO DEDUCTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN TIME IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. FURT HER THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO FILE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS IN FORM NO. 24Q AND 26 IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE SAID QUARTERLY STATEMENTS WITH CERTAIN DELAY. THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVING THE DELAY IN FURNISHING OF THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.4 47 200/- AS THE DELAY WAS FOR 2583 DAYS IN RESPECT OF FORM NO.24Q AND 1889 DAYS IN RESPECT OF FORM NO.26 Q. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OBSERV ED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS BECAUSE OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT OF LA W ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE TOOK PLA CE BECAUSE OF THE AFORESAID DELAY THE BREACH OF DUTY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY OR VENIAL BREACH AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT HE DELETED THE LEVY OF PENA LTY. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS WERE FILED BY THE 8 ASSESSEE THOUGH WITH CERTAIN DELAY AND THE TAXES DE DUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE PAID TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME. THE AFORESAID DELA Y IN FILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CERTAINLY A DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ATTRACTED PENALTY U/S 27 2A(2)(K) OF THE ACT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE SHOWS A REASONABLE CAUSE WI THIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. THUS WE ARE REQUIRED T O ADJUDICATE WHETHER ON FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE THE CAUSE WHIC H HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE CAUSE U/S 273B OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM F ILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME BECAUSE OF THE LA CK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW ON THE PART OF THE DIRECT ORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES. WE FIND THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF FURNISHING OF THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS WERE INTRODU CED UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) AC T 2004 W.E.F. 1- 4-2005. WE FIND THAT REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY MA TERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER AWARE OF THIS REQUIREMENT OF LAW. FURTHER ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX WITHIN THE PRESC RIBED TIME ITSELF SHOWS THAT ORDINARILY THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY BENEFI T TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH IT WOULD DELIBERATELY DELAY THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS. FURTHER THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE IS FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UP (1979 ) 118 ITR 326 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTI ON IN THIS COUNTRY THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW AND IT WOULD BE CON TRARY TO COMMON SENSE AND REASON IF IT WERE SO. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ALL THE STATUTORY LAW AND NOT V ERY POSSIBLE TO KNOW ALL THE COMMON LAW. FURTHER THE HON'BLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT 9 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K P V S MOHAMMAD ROWTHER & C O. 232 ITR 176 (MAD) HELD THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW CAN BE A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE AND DELETION OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. FURTHER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATER IAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ANY LOSS TO THE REVENUE WAS CAUSED BECAUS E OF THE AFORESAID DELAY IN FURNISHING OF THE QUARTERLY STAT EMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE ABOVE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERR OR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS WITH CERTAIN DELAY WAS A TECHNICAL OR VE NIAL BREACH OF LAW ONLY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. V STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF HARSIDDH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. CI?T 244 ITR 41 7 (GUJ) WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08-01-2010 SD/- SD/- (T K SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N S SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 08-01-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED GUJARAT SAMACHAR BHAVAN KHANPUR AHMEDABAD 2. THE ACIT TDS CIRCLE AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-X AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABA