M/s UCO Bank, Shimla v. ITO (TDS), Shimla

ITA 94/CHANDI/2015 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 9421514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAACU3561B
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 94/CHANDI/2015
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s UCO Bank, Shimla
Respondent ITO (TDS), Shimla
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 27-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 27-04-2015
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 27-01-2015
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.94/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 UCO BANK VS. THE ITO(TDS) HQ ARTRAC SHIMLA SHIMLA PAN NO. AAACU3561B & ITA NO.92 & 93/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 UCO BANK VS. THE ITO (TDS) BRANCH HPMIDC SHIMLA SHIMLA PAN NO. AAACU3561B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWANI K. LAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 27/04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/04/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD A.M. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) SHIMLA DATED 05/11/2014 & 7.11.2014. 2. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS THEREFORE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 94/CHD/2015. IN THIS APPEAL FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 2 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY FOR RS. 10 000/- U/S 272B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVE N THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND AT THE APPELLATE STAGE DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. WHE REAS FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE I NTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE LD. A.O. 4. THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY FOUR DAYS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE APPLICATION AND POINTED OUT THAT APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 23.01.2015. THE ASSESSEE PREPARED THE APPEA L AND SENT THE SAME BY REGISTERED POST ON 22.1.2015 BELIEVING THAT THE SAM E WOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE REGISTRAR ON 23.1.2015. HOWEVER THE APPEAL HAS BE EN DELIVERED ON 27.01.2015 I.E. WHY DELAY IS THERE. THE DELAY IS PURELY ON ACC OUNT OF POSTAL DELAY BEING TECHNICAL MAY BE CONDONED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS . 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT DELAY IS BASICALLY DUE TO POSTAL AUTHORITIES WHICH MAY AGAIN BE DUE TO NA TIONAL HOLIDAY ON 26.01.2015. THE DELAY IS PURELY OF TECHNICAL NATURE AND THEREFO RE THE SAME IS CONDONED. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT PENA LTY U/S 272B HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE ASSESSEE H AS QUOTED INVALID /WRONG PAN NUMBERS IN CERTAIN TDS STATEMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFO RE PENALTY IS LEVIED. 3 8. ON APPEAL THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW ANY REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR MAKING THE CORRECTIONS LATE. 9. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE THE CORRECTNESS WHEREVER WRONG PAN NUM BERS WERE QUOTED. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DISTRICT FOOD & SUPPLIES CONTROLLERS YAMUNANAGAR V ITO (TDS) PANCKULA IN ITA NO. 93/CHD/2014. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE PARA 7 IN THE CASE OF DISTRICT FOOD & SUPPLIES CONTROLLERS YAMUNANAGAR V ITO (TDS) (SUPRA) WHICH READS AS UN DER:- 7. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH O F TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 441/CHD/2012 & C.O. NO. 31/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS) VS. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE YAMUNANAGAR AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.7.2013 HELD AS UNDER: 7. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN REL ATION TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT FOR THE DEFAULT IN QU OTING OF PAN NUMBERS OF THE DEDUCTEES IN THE E-TDS QUARTERLY STATEMENT FILE D IN FORM NO. 26Q BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID FORM NO. 26Q RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 HAD WRONGLY QUOTED THE PAN NUMBERS IN RESPECT OF 53 DEDUCTEES. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE CORRECTIO N STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ALSO. IN VIEW THEREOF THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 5 30 000/- THE SAME WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 10 000/- BY THE CIT (APPEALS). THE PROVISION OF SECTION 272B(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDE THAT IF A PERSON FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 139 A THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY B Y WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF RS. 10 000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT WE ARE IN 4 AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN RE STRICTING LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE ACT AT RS. 10 000 /-. 8. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF VARIOUS ASSESSES AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE U NDERMENTIONED CASES HAD UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272B O F THE ACT AT RS. 10 000/-. 12. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE THE CORRECT PAN NUMBERS AVAILABLE READILY THEREFORE IN OUR OPINIO N THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE CORRECT STATEMENT LATE. HOWEV ER AT THE SAME TIME IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR APPELLATE O RDER WHETHER CORRECTION STATEMENT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES THE REFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND R EMIT THE SAME TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT IF THE CORR ECT STATEMENT OF ALL THE PAN NUMBERS QUOTED EARLIER HAVE BEEN FILED THEN NO PEN ALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED OTHERWISE THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. ITA NO. 92 & 93/CHD/2015 13. IN THESE TWO APPEALS THERE IS NO DELAY BUT OTHE RWISE THE ISSUES ON MERITS ARE SAME AS ADJUDICATED ABOVE IN ITA NO. 94/CHD/201 5 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME IN THESE TWO CASES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) AND REMIT THE SAME BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A SIMILAR DIR ECTION. 14. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/04/2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH APRIL 2015 RKK 5 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR